User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

securityfs

securityfs

Posted Oct 28, 2005 14:50 UTC (Fri) by Xires (guest, #33435)
Parent article: securityfs

http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/

I didn't know who to reply to; everyone seemed to be complaining.

I personally understand the desire to keep things as organized as
possible(atleast in respect to a filesystem). On the other hand, there is
already so much disarray that I fail to see where it really matters.
Originally, /etc was supposed to contain system-wide configuration details
necessary for getting the system up and functional and for allowing it to
maintain functionality in runlevel 1. Now it seems that it's common
practice to just drop every configuration file known there with little to
no additional organization. With this de facto standard in effect, why
bother organizing / itself? Furthermore, with securityfs residing inside
of /sys, I see no more disarray in the general filesystem scheme than what
was already there. If you are mounting /sys, it's already there taking up
space in /..so why complain about entries in /?


(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds