Let's clarify something first: *I'm NOT* moving stuff around. This thread was started by someone else. Standardization is perhaps not the clearest term in this situation. It's more of a standard abstraction. > The people who write and packages and the various linux distributions > decide where this stuff goes. They know a hell of a lot more about how > to organize a file system than the average user. The Idea behind a > distribution is to have this type of work completed so the users & > Admins don't have to. Sure. It's great that the distributor decides this ahead of time, but the layout they choose is heavily dictated by the historical structure of the filesystem. Essentially, we're stuck with what we have unless you want to go out and build your own distribution. I'm not going to argue the reasons that someone might change the structure: I'm not trying to change it. I, personally, have no reason to. Say, however, a large company is installing linux as their primary operating system on all their machines and they want to rename and reorganize the filesystem so that it's more intuitive and explicit. They're left with needing to build their own distribution which is overkill for a simple matter of renaming a /etc to /configuration. Say, in a separate circumstance, a company want's to make their linux installations congruent with the filesystem of another os (for the learning curve or more technical reasons). The fact is that none of these are practical as it is without building your own distribution which is silly given the number of distributions currently out there. Abstracting the filesystem in the way I described wouldn't change anything for the end user, and the dumb ones wouldn't have to fool around with it. It would be standardized because there would be a single file recognized as the place to go for information on the filesystem structure. Justin >>2) standardization. > > > ??? I thought this thread was about moving stuff around to fit your > taste. Last I checked, that's the opposite of standardization. There is > a standard, it's being used, you want to create your own structure and > form a new standard to be non-standard? Seriously dude, WHY are you > moving your stuff around? > > And I love the 30-yr argument. One side of the table (mostly funded by > Microsoft) says that since it's 30 yrs old, it needs to die. The other > side (scary looking 50 yr old bearded hackers) say it worked from the > beginning, it works still, everyone uses it, why change? It ain't > broken! > > -Brian > > > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list