Tim wrote: > I can understand the move away from /usr/X11... but why didn't it go > to /usr/share/X11 or something like that, rather than straight into the > root trees? * Why shouldn't it? Why shouldn't X be considered a normal part of Unix, rather than something strange that has to be kept away in its own directory tree? * It does use appropriate subdirectories (including /usr/share/X11) for files that can reasonably be put in those places. (Remember that the FHS standard says /usr/share can be shared between x86, x86_64 and PowerPC machines, so you can't put *everything* there). Run something like rpm -qfl /usr/bin/X : the commands are in /usr/bin, but the modules are tucked away in subdirectories under /usr/lib or /usr/lib64. * Back when /usr/X11 was invented, it came from MIT, was *not* the only windowing system for Unix (think X1 to X10, and NeWS from Sun), and had ambitions to be the *complete* graphical interface. These days, we don't use Athena widgets (much), we don't use twm (much), and the scope of X has effectively fallen to being a low-level networking and graphics subsystem. * Rpm and other packaging tools mean that mixing X in the same directories as the rest of the system is no longer a problem for system administration. * Directories containing a large number of files used to be a lot more inefficient than they are now. So there used to be some pressure not to expand directories too far. So the reasons (independence, scope, convenience, performance) why X was separate in the first place no longer apply. * There are other subsystems (Gnome, KDE, and arguably OpenOffice, Java, and the Mozilla camp) that can be just as large, wide-ranging, and could argue that they deserve their own directory tree. Hope this helps, James. -- E-mail address: james | "My aunt's camel has fallen in the mirage." @westexe.demon.co.uk | -- "Soul Music", Terry Pratchett.
