From owner-freebsd-questions  Tue Aug  8 12:22:53 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73DA37B59E
	for <questions@freebsd.org>; Tue,  8 Aug 2000 12:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org)
Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97])
	by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #4)
	id 13MExU-000Ciw-00
	for questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:22:40 +0100
Received: (from jcm@localhost)
	by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA21363
	for questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:22:39 +0100 (BST)
	(envelope-from jcm)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:22:39 +0100
From: j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>
To: questions@freebsd.org
Subject: unix filesystem structure
Message-ID: <20000808202239.A21332@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

is there any advantage to the unix filesystem structure, keeping all
binaries together, all docs together, all config files together, etc, rather
than the modern method of keeping all the parts of a given application
together?

jm
-- 
i'm tired of signatures.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message