[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles)

From: Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom
Subject: Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:33:08 -0600
User-agent: Mutt/

>   Okay.  I don't want to speak for anybody without approval; is there
> rough agreement about everything?  I'll apply Thomas Bushnell's and
> your corrections sometime in the next day, and post the result to this
> list then.

just to voice my opinion, so that it can't be said I didn't raise objections
when the time was right for them. :)

my main objection is the naming of /com. it seems very counter-intutive;
since my experience is that 'com' means 'command'. 
I would prefer a name like /share or /shared; but in the current scheme that 
seems to
be already taken. (as someone said, this is for _variable_ stuff _shared_
between computers... which seems like an awfully good prototype for a naming
if it were lengthened to /common or /cluster or the like; this would be much
easier for new (and old) users to understand, I think (and wouldn't take any
more typing, since we're likely to have tab-completion most of the time). 
I don't mean to flame or disparage anyone's ideas by stating this...
obviously other people have been at this stuff longer than I have, and
probably have a pretty decent idea of what they're doing. I'm just trying to
provide a reasoned dissent. :)

Carl Soderstrom.
Network Engineer
Real-Time Enterprises

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]