From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Aug 8 13: 2:17 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from trill.hh.se (trill.hh.se [194.47.5.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C65137BF5F for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:02:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from u98jobj@stud.hh.se) Received: from gs177.gsten.hh.se (chip@gs177.gsten.hh.se [194.47.16.177]) by trill.hh.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03782; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:58:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20000808202239.A21332@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 21:58:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Joel Bjork To: j mckitrick Subject: RE: unix filesystem structure Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 08-Aug-00 j mckitrick wrote: > 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. Well, one of the advantages is that you can keep the $PATH variable reasonable sized, another is that a simple ls /usr/local/bin tells me what's installed on the system. Making scripts that port to other systems is also easier since the different commands you might be needing should be in the same place. I am sure that those more familiar with unix can give you even more reasons. ---------------------------------- E-Mail: Joel Bjork Date: 08-Aug-00 Time: 21:58:21 ---------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message