Drew wrote:
> The argument you're expressing, as I see it, is that there is really
> no difference whether or not the files are stored in /var or /srv
> because in the end they're bits on a disk so where in the file system
> they end up doesn't matter. /var was chosen years ago by Unix admins
> so why change it to /srv?
Not quite. It is more a matter of a standard only being useful if
everyone does what it says. Picking a new location that no one
currently uses is always the worst possible choice.
> My argument is that those same Unix admins no doubt placed it there
> because it made functional sense at the time.
It is not a functional thing. It's a name.
> Over the years that
> location became a convention and therefore became an arbitrary
> location. The LSB is reviewing that same functional choice in light of
> what changes have occurred in how we use servers and they feel that it
> makes more functional sense to break those files out into their own
> tree.
Names are arbitrary. If you make up a new one, you ensure that you
break everything that already had one - and that's mostly what the LSB
has done so far.
> As far as breaking tradition from Unix, last time I checked porting an
> app of reasonable size over from Linux to Unix is not a simple
> process.
Linus started out with the idea of emulating Solaris/SysVr4. If that's
not what happened, it is a failing of Linux. And Posix imposed
additional standards along the way. And of course java came along and
made it possible to run things portably in spite of the OS attempts to
prevent that.
> The choice to put client facing files in one directory or
> another is a minor part, at best, of that process.
Aren't all files 'client facing' if the machine has a purpose? What
other reason would you have for any files?
> I agree with you on standardizing libraries but I fail to see how that
> has any relevance to where an admin should place their client facing
> files.
Standardizing libraries would be a functional reason to embrace the LSB.
Otherwise it makes about as much sense as having a committee make up
new names for your kids. If mount points and volume sizes were also
standardized, it might be reasonable to standardize what goes where, but
they aren't and shouldn't be because the machines will differ in size
and purpose.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
