From: jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana Kouhia) Subject: Re: Obsolete article, obsolete thread :-) (Re: No /usr/local please) Date: 29 Sep 1992 13:14:20 GMT
In article <9209281576@gandalf.moria>
u31b3hs@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Michael Haardt) writes:
If obsolete means rubbish, then indeed you wrote it.
>Oh boy, can anybody explain me why this thread is here at all? I see several
>things, none of them justifying that waste of bandwidth:
>
>- There are a few "distributions" for beginners. Their maintainers can
> decide about the structure, if discussion is needed then I am pretty sure
> that joining a channel on the mailing list is better.
Nope. Everybody don't want to join to channels because they are not
correct place for Joe User -- mail list for 1.0 release 'standard'
is quite unimportant for average comp.os.linux readers.
Why to join to mail list for only *one* article on the subject.
>- Intolerance of other philosophies about how a system should look like.
> Change your system (you are root and have sources for everything) and
> convince your friends *by e-mail or talk from face to face*. If you think
> that your articles will convince the world, then become a politician.
Nonsense. (or obsolete :-)
We are writing about official distribution, not about each
individual's personal taste.
>My directory structure is different from the usual one, it doesn't give
>me problems and I am satisfied with it. And no, I will not post it to
>avoid flames.
But why then follow-up to alt.flame??
>Linux is a real UN*X.
Then we make a directory structure which is in majority of Unix systems.
(We could vote this, but the vote result is anyway the same as
we get by examining majority from Unix systems.)
Is Linus Torvalds the person who finally (eventually) decides what
directory structure the official version uses?
Will there be an official system (by the way)? (Linux 1.0?)
What is the biggest problems in making it?
Juhana Kouhia