Disk defragmenter in Linux

[John Summerfied]

Guy Fraser wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-27-12 at 19:46 -0800, Peter Gordon wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 17:27 -0700, Guy Fraser wrote:
>>
>>>Stuffing a lot of files into a directory is a bad practice,
>>>and Red Hat is well known for it. Check /usr/bin, /etc and 
>>>a few others. Many of the files would [normally] be located 
>>>under /usr/local.
>>
>>Pardon my probable misunderstanding, but isn't this the whole idea
>>of the standard filesystem layout for Unix/Unix-like operating systems?
>>
>>I.e., if it's not installed through the system package manager, it has
>>its tree of /lib, /sbin, /bin, /man, /share, etc under /usr/local;
>>whereas if it *is* installed through the system packaging, it has its
>>own /lib, /sbin, /bin, /share, /man, etc layout tree under / or /usr,
>>depending on various factors like partitioning or network-mounting /usr,
>>etc.
> 
> 
> That is how Red Hat and it's offshoots work.
> 
> It can be a contentious issue, exactly where to put 
> non base system files. Sun Microsystems used to prefer 
> /opt but almost everyone else uses /usr/local for most 
> add on software. But it is well understood that :
> 
> 	/bin, /sbin and /lib are for 
> single user base system commands and their required libraries.
That's not quite the case. Check the facts at http://www.pathname.com/ 
(and fall in love with Enya while you're there).


> 
> 	/usr/bin, /usr/sbin and /usr/lib are for 
> multiuser base system commands and their required libraries.
> 
> 	/etc is for base system configuration.



-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at computerdatasafe.com.au  Z1aaaaaaa at computerdatasafe.com.au
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/

do not reply off-list