[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No to StowFS!
From: |
Karl Berry |
Subject: |
Re: No to StowFS! |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:02:55 -0600 |
there is no harm in keeping it around for now,
Glad to hear it. That wasn't clear to me.
and when the time comes,
I don't think the time will ever come.
Although I can believe that our own packages could be compiled to avoid
/usr without an impossible amount of difficulty, this does not take
account of users' own scripts and programs. Essentially all of which
depend on /usr, since it has been around since day 1 of Unix. It would
not be good for GNU if users could not run their longstanding scripts
and processes without having to "port" it -- very frustrating waste of
time. (All the POSIX madness has caused similar frustrations, but no
/usr at all would be another whole level of agony.)
Thanks,
k
- Re: No to StowFS!, (continued)
- Re: No to StowFS!, Gianluca Guida, 2006/02/02
- Re: No to StowFS!, Leonardo Pereira, 2006/02/02
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/03
- Re: No to StowFS!, Filip Brcic, 2006/02/04
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!, Karl Berry, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!, Karl Berry, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/07
- Re: No to StowFS!,
Karl Berry <=
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/08
- Re: No to StowFS!, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2006/02/08
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/07
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!, Michael Heath, 2006/02/04
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!, Filip Brcic, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Gianluca Guida, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Leonardo Pereira, 2006/02/05