So true in more than one way... On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:40 AM, superstippi@xxxxxx <superstippi@xxxxxx>wrote: > Hi, sorry for Top-posting. > > If memory serves, usr stands for Unix Shared Resources. Nothing to do with > User. > > Best regards, > Stephan > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > Von: "Julian Harnath" <julian.harnath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > An: <haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Betreff: [haiku-development] Re: RFC: /usr symlink? > Datum: Fr., Okt. 11, 2013 09:46 > > > Alexander von Gluck IV <kallisti5@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb: > > Thoughts? > > I'd rather go the route of finding a different workaround, e.g. the > idea of adding it to runtime loader which is invisible to the user. > > If we make the file system hierarchy *look* more like unix then people > coming from such systems will also expect it to *behave* more like it. > They might also expect that there's a /usr/share or /usr/doc and many > other things. Creating wrong expectations leads to confusion so I think > a workaround-solution which is invisible to the user is a better way to > handle it. > > Last but not least, I don't like a symlink called "usr" to system files. > The name doesn't make sense. Why put system files in a directory name > abbreviated for "user"? (This [1] nice little text gives an explanation > of how "usr" ended up being what it is today and why it doesn't make > sense.) > > For our /var at least, the name is fine, it's a place for files which > are variable. Although I'm not too fond of such abbrevations, at least > it makes sense. Same for /dev, /bin or /tmp. "etc" is a puzzling name > again - to this day, I'm not even sure what "etc" stands for. It always > reminds me of "et cetera" but that doesn't make sense... but well, we > have it and it's okay to keep it. > > > [1] http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html > > -- > So long, jua > >