Guy Fraser wrote:
That's not quite the case. Check the facts at http://www.pathname.com/
(and fall in love with Enya while you're there).
That is from January 2004, and appears to be Red Hat centric.
It's not RH-centric.It applies equally to all distros.
I learnt about file system hierarchy in the 1980's. Just because
So? Linux isn't Unix, it's only very similar.
someone claims to be in charge of some kind of official web page
on file system hierarchy does mean it is the official
recommendations for all distributions and Unix variants.
But it is. Well, originally it was Linux-only. I don't know the status
of Unix compliance (not relevant here, this is Linux), but I note one of
the maintainers, Rusty Russell, is a well-known Linux guru with
particular credentials in the kernel.
See:
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/fhs/
Copyright (C) 1994-2000 Daniel Quinlan
Same chap I pointed you at.
http://www.isu.edu/departments/comcom/unix/workshop/fstour.html
So? Linux isn't Unix, it's only very similar.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/dirstructure.html
So? Linux isn't Unix, it's only very similar.
Read up on LSB 3.0 ch 16. It happens to refer to the link I gave earlier.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
do not reply off-list
