Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:45:28 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Stephen McKay <mckay@thehub.com.au> Cc: Nathan Arun <nathan_arun@hotmail.com>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a suggestion Message-ID: <20020124164528.D2760@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <200201241606.g0OG6I517948@dungeon.home>; from mckay@thehub.com.au on Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 02:06:18AM %2B1000 References: <F88HOzyfyz5b6KZmcK80000ce69@hotmail.com> <200201241606.g0OG6I517948@dungeon.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 02:06:18AM +1000 I heard the voice of Stephen McKay, and lo! it spake thus: > > I've idly thought of rearranging everything too. After all, it mostly just > accreted as time went by. Once there was only /bin for executables. And > /usr was the "User" pack. Then user binaries had to go in /usr/bin. Once > /usr/bin became formalised as part of the O/S, user binaries had to go > somewhere else. /usr/local sprang into being. Network computing brought That's not quite it. /usr, last I checked, still stood for Unix System Repository (or some similar), and came about because / was getting too big for the fixed (in the sense of "fixed for all eternity, don't even bother to think about replacing me" :) disks in systems of the time. /usr/local became a defacto place for locally-installed software. > new difficulties, so /var was born. Later, package handling got out of hand > and /opt was added to fix this (not here though, for some reason the ports > people just stole /usr/local from the local admins). Hmm. Ports people: > When can we have /usr/local back? I'll trade you /pkg for it. :-) /opt came about when formalized packaging systems came about. Ports seems to have the attitude of "Wait, whether it's compiled manually or with our packaging framework, it's STILL a local addition, why the heck would we waste another directory?". I can see plenty of arguments for both sides of THAT particular argument, so let's not start that flamefest just yet :-). > It's much more complicated than that. My desktop is top notch. Why > don't you like it? Probably it is too spartan for you. Nothing animates. > Nothing fades in or out. It is completely oriented towards getting my > work done without getting in the way. No improvement in usability is > necessary. Does that explain why I'm not working on desktop "improvement"? Amen to that. I love my twm. Keep your bloody 'icons' the hell away from my desktop, than you very much. What makes Unix desktops "better" in the eyes of me-as-the-person-using-it, is that it IS structured so you CAN easily do it a kadzillion different ways. KDE is heavy as hell, and it's got everything you can imagine integrated into it. Then you've got the twm's and mwm and the like which are extremely minimalistic. And the Blackbox's and fvwm's and xfce's in the middle. Pick what fits you and use it; what could possibly be an 'improvement' on that? Though, I must admit, I like the taste of dolphin... -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Unix Systems Administrator | fullermd@futuresouth.com Specializing in FreeBSD | http://www.over-yonder.net/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020124164528.D2760>