zlacker

>>csmant+(OP)
This post gets some of the details wrong. /usr/local is for site-local software - e.g. things you compile yourself, i.e in the case of the BSDs the ports collection - things outside the base system. (They may be compiled for you).

Since Linux has no concept of a base system, it's a stand-alone kernel with a hodgepodge of crap around it - this distinction makes no sense on Linux.

/opt is generally for software distros for which you don't have source; only binaries. Like commercial software packages. More common on Real UNIX(R) because most Linux users outside enterprise aren't running commercial software. You're putting your $500k EDA software under /opt.

>>schmuc+3q
> Since Linux has no concept of a base system, it's a stand-alone kernel with a hodgepodge of crap around it - this distinction makes no sense on Linux.

The Linux base system is managed by the package manager, leaving local for the sysadmin to `make install` into

>>yjftsj+zs
> The Linux base system

There is no such thing as a Linux base system.

Separate components, separate people.

Hence the term Ganoo plus Leenox...

>>schmuc+Et
Well, no, my exact argument is that there is a base system, even if it is composed of assorted components. If you install Debian (or whatever) on a machine, the software installed by the package manager ships as a unified release that has been adapted to work together. I think it's reasonable to call that the base OS. And then, separate from that base system that is managed by the package manager, the local admin my install things into /usr/local.

>>yjftsj+bA
They're talking about Linux, the kernel. The kernel has no concept of a base system. There is initramfs and init.

>>LoganD+JK
Okay, that's true but other than the slight semantic point of "Linux" vs a "Linux distro" or "GNU/Linux" I don't think it matters. Whatever words you use to describe it, there is a base OS which is composed of a variety of components from different sources but which ultimately amounts to a single thing.