At Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:05:54 -0500,
Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 10:50am, cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Things todo before we announce
> > At Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:54:52 -0500,
> > Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > just a small thing, but it could become a headache later - is
> > > anyone violently opposed to this change...?
> > Not really... but I think a better idea would be
> > to have /usr/xfs/ put all of our binaries in there,
> > with links in /sbin.
> well, mkfs is a bit special - /usr might be a separate filesystem
> and might not be mounted at the time mkfs is needed. perhaps the
> same is true for the other xfs tools too, i'm not sure.
> could implement your approach going the other way though (i.e.
> having links from /usr/xfs/* to the real binary in /sbin, but
> i'm not sure what that buys us...? do the different distributions
> do different things here? what does the lfs say on this?)
> i'll go ahead and make the change (/sbin/mkfs_xfs now becomes
> /sbin/mkfs.xfs, so that ``mkfs -t xfs'' works).
The point I was getting at:
We shouldn't pollute the system with stuff people can't
distinctly remove; not util xfs it more accecpted.
A lot of people are going to try xfs initially but
not really do much with it.
Giving people a distinct point to "blow stuff away"
is more conforting than the MS scheme of "replacing 80% of
your os now...."