Drew wrote:
>> Not likely... Storage paths are all arbitrary and if a standard has to
>> make up a new location that breaks existing concepts they've already
>> done something wrong.
>
> Times change. What worked well on Unix 20-30 years ago isn't
> necessarily the best way of doing things today.
Storage paths are arbitrary. There's nothing more functional about one
path than any other. This isn't about 'working well'. It's about
forcing everyone to change for no reason. It's about making Linux
different from other unix flavors for no reason. All while avoiding the
thing that Linux actually needs which is to define a standard set of
libraries and their locations that must be present so people can deliver
programs that run across distributions.
> Websites for example
> have moved from static html on the arpanet & university sites to the
> rich multimedia content we see today. Back then the idea of a website
> infecting a computer was unheard of. Now an entire industry has
> cropped up around protecting systems from malicious content.
Those are functional issues, not arbitrary choices.
>> So far the LSB has been good at making up things
>> that nobody used before - not so good at getting everyone to agree to
>> change (and change again every time they change their minds).
>
> I've never seen an entire industry move rapidly to adopt change unless
> there are significant incentives to do so. And as the incentives for
> Linux to do so are primarily "best practices" I don't expect to see a
> wholesale move anytime soon.
Exactly. There is no reason to change from one arbitrary location to
another, and without standardizing library functionality and locations
the LSB provides no functional benefit.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com