Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!News.Uni-Marburg.DE!news.th-darmstadt.de!fauern!news.tu-chemnitz.de!irz401!uriah.heep!not-for-mail
From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: File hierarchy (was Re: Linux or FreeBSD)
Date: 22 Sep 1995 23:49:17 +0200
Organization: Private FreeBSD site, Dresden.
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <43vb0t$daq@uriah.heep.sax.de>
References: <409iah$inf@galaxy.ucr.edu> <43ltqq$3k1@agate.berkeley.edu> <43pvh8$c6j@uriah.heep.sax.de> <43to8n$2so@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: uriah.heep.sax.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nick Kralevich <nickkral@parker.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>The last Linux distribution i've seen (some Slackware derivative) had
>>tons of binaries under /etc,
>
>The current slackware has *no* binaries under /etc. For as long as
>I've used Slackware, I've never seen a binary under /etc. You must
>have been viewing some wierd distribution of Linux, definitely not
>based on either Slackware, Red Hat (Caldera), or Yggridisal (sp?).
It was the (German) S.u.S.E. distribution, definately based on some
Slackware version. The kernel was still a 0.99.something one (much to
my surprise), but the CD has been made at most half a year ago,
probably even younger. I've borrowed it from a colleague.
>>I admit that this is a simple snapshot observation, but unfortunately,
>>this inconsistency seems to be somewhat typical for several Linux
>>distributions.
>
>For a person who usually posts very well thought out answers, I can't
>believe that you would post such a thing. The Linux distributions
As i said -- a snapshot observation. I ain't got the time to follow
all the systems (i don't follow NetBSD either).
>If you have seen a recent distribution that has serious
>inconsistancies, I invite you to post examples. Vague generalities
>don't have that much weight in arguments.
Just a moment... booting my notebook. I've purchased a second-hand
disk with a pre-installed Linux (and decided to keep it, along with
FreeBSD). Let's see...
Ok, this one doesn't count. :) It's an LST distribution dating from
somewhere around Jan 1994. I should better remove it. (Btw., the
kernel was from 1980. Interesting, i didn't know Linux is already
that old. :-)
>Does FreeBSD have any file system standard as comprehensive as
>the Linux File System Standard?
No, but only about 50 developers with the power to decide where a
particular binary should finally go to. In doubt, a commiter should
ask the hackers before actually commiting it.
I think you get the point. Linux doesn't have a tightly bound
development team (this is not to say this were actually a bad thing!),
hence it simply does need more of a standardization paper. For
{Free,Net}BSD, there's always the option to ask the hackers list, and
the basic goal is to be consistent with what's already existing.
>1) Does the FreeBSD team support/want multiple distributions
>of the FreeBSD operating system?
The FreeBSD team itself not. Anyway it's free, so other people might
want to prepare their own versions. They will certainly have their
reasons for it, and i think it's in their own interest then to not
make gratuitous changes e.g. to the file system layout.
>2) Assuming that there are multiple distributions of the
>FreeBSD operating system, how will it be possible to maintain
>consistancy between different versions? Different versions are
>going to want to add different applications to different places.
Why are they going?
--
cheers, J"org
joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)