Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 14:47:53 -0500 From: "Jonathan Fosburgh" <fosburgh@flash.net> To: "j mckitrick" <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>, <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: unix filesystem structure Message-ID: <038401c00171$8b6ea3b0$ca406f8f@mdacc.tmc.edu> References: <20000808202239.A21332@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
IMHO I like everything being where I can find it. I like knowing where the executables are, where the docs are, etc. It makes it easier on paths (ever try looking at /opt setups? Very much like Windows Program Files directories, grouped by application, so a PATH variable would have to have a ton of entries rather than maybe 5 or 6) and its easier for me to go to /usr/local/share/doc/application than to try to remember if it installed in Program FIles or somewhere in the drive's (filesystem's) root directory. Jonathan Fosburgh Open Systems Communications and Computer Services UT MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX 77030 ----- Original Message ----- From: "j mckitrick" <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> To: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 2:22 PM Subject: unix filesystem structure > 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 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?038401c00171$8b6ea3b0$ca406f8f>