Main Page | Report Page

 

  Linux Forum Index » Linux Setup » /opt vs. /usr/local...

Author Message
Moe Trin...
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:41 pm
 
On Sun, 10 Oct 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.setup, in article
<i8sp17$le9$1 at (no spam) speranza.aioe.org>, Chris Cox wrote:

Quote:
annalissa wrote:

Can any one give me exact hard and fast rules for when to use /opt
and when to use /usr/local directories , when installing 3rd party sw?

Sorry, there aren't any clear rules.

Agreed, but see the 'Filesystem Hierarchy Standard' available from
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ and the Linux Filesystem Hierarchy
guide from the LDP at http://tldp.org/guides.html

Quote:
There's a lot of history... and some of it is good to know.

Some consider using /opt/ for add-on packages that are fully developed
by other suppliers, that may have LANANA (Linux Assigned Names and
Numbers Authority - www.lanana.org) registrations (the LSB used the
example of StarOffice), while /usr/local is more commonly used for
stuff developed locally and meant for use by "everyone" (as opposed
to stuff "you" develop for your "own" use which may be better placed
in the ~/bin/ directory in your ~/).

Quote:
In the world of pre-made packages, a lot of vendor commercial supplied
packages might want to default /opt. I'm not sure if I've seen anyone
try to put their own skunkworks style project there.... unless it's
targeted for commercial distribution.

It's often done by vendors who want to use a specific feature where
the vendor or various distributions have ``improved'' a commonly used
library (or other binary). One need only attempt to install a kernel
from distribution "A" into a distribution "B" system to see things
die horribly due to incompatibilities because that other distribution
(and/or original program author) doesn't know the ``right'' way to do
things (according to distribution "A").

Quote:
Don't get me started on /usr/local/opt. Smile

Can't say that I've seen that - it's not suggested by the FHS.

Quote:
Gnome dumps everything into the already full /usr/bin, etc areas by
convention...

where the FHS recommends

Quote:
SuSE moved both Gnome and KDE to an /opt base. In a way, I sort of
liked that. These are LARGE packages and in all fairness making /usr
the dumping ground for EVERYTHING means less configuration
possibilities with regards to storage.

Gnome and KDE are attempting to emulate a windoze environment and
operating philosophy (everything is part of the O/S^H^H^Hdesktop!) for
the single user, and each are quite bloated as a result. Some people
actually install both, and then wonder why their system runs slowly
and needs more than 2 Gigs of RAM. It's like installing AND RUNNING
windoze and OSX on the same system at the same time. Probably not the
smartest idea, but those authors of that "other" O/S^H^H^Hdesktop
don't know the ``right'' way to do things.

Old guy
 
The Natural Philosopher...
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:53 pm
 
Moe Trin wrote:

Quote:

Gnome and KDE are attempting to emulate a windoze environment and
operating philosophy (everything is part of the O/S^H^H^Hdesktop!) for
the single user, and each are quite bloated as a result.

This is true, but its fairly sane: once you have an X server, its
essentially a single user at a time machine.

If I run a multiuser server, it doesn't have X, or a desktop on it.

If I want a desktop machine, the the Windows metaphor ain't too bad, and
at least Gnome et al do a decent job of providing it. Unlike Microsnot.

I have never had a problem with what OSX and Windows TRY to do, its the
way they fail to achieve it that rankles..especially if it means
instability and security holes.
 
 
Page 3 of 3    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:52 am