Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Aug 2008 15:37 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 327798
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: what is wrong with FHS?
by Adam S on Sun 24th Aug 2008 16:23
in reply to "RE[2]: what is wrong with FHS?"
user without e would be usr and that is not short for user, but for unix shared recources.
Not so much. /usr is likely just shorthand for "user", as documented a zillion times everywhere. Unix System Resources was introduced after the hierarchy was already in effect.
http://www.definethat.com/define/7110.htm
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/2003-December/00171...
RE[3]: what is wrong with FHS?
by MamiyaOtaru on Mon 25th Aug 2008 03:11
in reply to "RE[2]: what is wrong with FHS?"




Member since:
2005-07-06
Either I've misunderstood or you have!
user without e would be usr and that is not short for user, but for unix shared recources.
But then again I might have misunderstood your post, making the quote in the top here being out out of context?
Nalle Berg
/.nalle.