Guy Fraser wrote:
>That's not quite the case. Check the facts at
http://www.pathname.com/
>(and fall in love with Enya while you're there).
That is from January 2004, and appears to be Red Hat centric.
It's not
RH-centric.It applies equally to all distros.
I learnt about file system hierarchy in the 1980's. Just because
So? Linux isn't Unix, it's only very similar.
someone claims to be in charge of some kind of official web page
on file system hierarchy does mean it is the official
recommendations for all distributions and Unix variants.
But it is. Well,
originally it was Linux-only. I don't know the status
of Unix compliance (not relevant here, this is Linux), but I note one of
the maintainers, Rusty Russell, is a well-known Linux guru with
particular credentials in the kernel.
Copyright (C) 1994-2000 Daniel
Quinlan
Same chap I pointed you at.
So? Linux isn't Unix, it's only very similar.
So?
Linux isn't Unix, it's only very similar.
Read up on LSB 3.0 ch 16. It happens to refer to the link I gave earlier.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)computerdatasafe.com.au Z1aaaaaaa(a)computerdatasafe.com.au
Tourist pics
http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
do not reply off-list