Reply to post: Re: Snap....

Ubuntu releases Core 22: Its IoT and edge distro

VoiceOfTruth Silver badge

Re: Snap....

-> In the classic xNix model, apps sort of merge into the OS. Some bits go in /usr/bin and some bits in /usr/lib and some elsewhere...

I feel a solemn duty to point you towards the hier man page on FreeBSD. In the Solaris world, at places where I worked, non-OS binaries were installed under /opt (occasionally I saw /usr/local). While it is possible to ignore the recommended layout, most packages and ports install under /usr/local rather than all over /etc /bin /lib /usr/lib and so on. This latter way of doing things, what I call to dumping on the OS, is something that first surprised me about Linux then surprised me even more. In the end it irritated me, this mixing up of core OS binaries and non-core.

How many Linux packages are available? Tens of thousands. Quite a few of them will be different spins on the same thing, e.g. Postfix with/without SASL/LMBD/BDB/MySQL/LDAP/etc. If we just go for a basic package and not try to install every version with slightly different options toggled on, it's still probably tens of thousands of packages. If I was to do something really stupid and install everything, How many files will be in /bin and /usr/bin after this? I imagine I would need the hundreds of gigs for the root partition as you recently suggested when using btrfs.

If you take a lot of source tarballs at random, and do what beginner developers do and run ./configure && make && make install, very often those installations will occur under /usr/local. So where does this using / as the root rather than /usr/local come from?

-> Mac OS X polished it and took it mainstream

Mac does have some foibles. It is true that the core OS does not usually get touched (unless perhaps there is a kernel module in a software package). But completely uninstalling a piece of software from a Mac requires excavating in ~/Library and sometimes /Library. I recently removed Google Drive from a Mac, that had chunks of code all over the place.

-> It doesn't matter if it's inelegant or inefficient. It works.

I would argue that it is simple and efficient for the end user. Some people tend to forget that computers are tools to make our lives easier, not for us to serve them building everything from source.

I enjoy building code from source, but sometimes I have to ask myself why I am doing this if either of two conditions are not being met: 1. Am I reviewing this code for security purposes? 2. Am I modifying the code to suit me? I would say that the number of times I have really reviewed a large chunk of source code for security purposes is zero. I may have looked at it, but that is not the same thing. I have certainly modified code to suit me.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon