Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles)

[Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom]

> > 2. isn't this the same thing as what '/usr/share' is all about?
> That is for static shareable data (you can make /usr/share readonly).
        very true. this is why I would prefer to have /usr/share and
/var/share. I thought we were getting rid of /usr tho. ;> (this is another
reason I still like the distinction of /usr... avoids overloading
functionality into directories on /; where other functionalities [shared
writeable space in this case] may want the same name.)

> > shared by another group, for their own reasons. (for instance, I can easily
> > concieve of sharing /var/log, such that a group of machines log to a common
> > syslog file, and can all view it locally. 
> 
> In this case you must forward the log messages over the network, you can
> not run multiple syslog instances logging to the same file.
        actually, yes you can. if you have a cluster filesystem (like GFS)
and syslog only opens the logfile for appending when it needs to write
something, you can have multiple machines writing to the same file, and all
have the same copy of it. it's not as efficient as remote syslogging (much
more traffic); but it *can* be done. 
        I mostly bring it up as an example of a reason we should retain
flexibility in our standards, to accomodate uses that the designers hadn't
conceived of. :)

Carl Soderstrom.
-- 
Network Engineer
Real-Time Enterprises
www.real-time.com