Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends

		   Linux Standards Mailing List Archives

From Sat Mar 14 00:37:29 1992
Return-Path: <>
Received: from JARTHUR.CLAREMONT.EDU by with SMTP (PP) 
          id <>; Sat, 14 Mar 1992 00:36:57 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 21:34:55 PST
From: "Jim Winstead Jr." <jwinstea@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Subject: Linux v0.95a and the ABC-Release

The release of Linux v0.95a, which is expected sometime next week,
will be handled a little differently than past releases.  After a
little bit of discussion with Linus, I have agreed to take over the
distribution of the root-system diskette.  

What does this mean?  Well, for one thing, the ABC-Release may become
obsolete real fast, since I have spent a good deal of time
restructuring the root floppy towards the released Linux Directory
Structure Standard (I don't believe this is the original name, but
it's what I have since dubbed it - I think it was called the Linux
File System Standard, which could cause possible confusion once a
Linux File System is defined to replace the current Minix one.
Besides, it really defines the Directory Structure, not the File

I have spent some time pouring through the back archives of the
standards mailing list, and the LDS-Standard, and have a few questions
for the members of this esteemed committee. (:

1)	Has a place been decided for init, update, swapon, mkfs,
	mknod, and other such administrative utilities?  From all the
	indications I've seen, /etc looks like the place to put them.

	What about other daemons?  (cron comes to mind, especially.)

	/usr/etc is WRONG! /etc/rc is started by init.  /usr may be
	mounted in rc.  How can /usr/etc/init run /rc if /usr hasn't
	been mounted yet?

2)	I've renamed agetty to getty.  This fits in with keeping the
	standard names for the standard unix utilites, even if they've
	been gleaned from sources that used different names to avoid
	conflict.  (i.e. the GNU stuff.)

3)	Where should programs like doshell and setterm go?  These are
	Linux-specific, and my reading of the LDS-Standard has them
	fitting into /usr/bin/local, which seems very odd.  Would they
	make more sense in /usr/bin?

4)	Something that will be on the root diskette, and may warrant
	mention in the LDS-Standard is a directory called /INSTALL
	where some documentation and installation scripts will go.
	Is there a better place for this?  (Perhaps something special
	under /usr/man?  /usr/man/INSTALL?)

5)	Do we want to see a /var tree?  I like the idea, personally.

6)	Here is the current tree structure on my root disk:

	         |          +-adm
	         |          +-etc
	         |          +-spool
	         |	    +-local----+-bin
	         | 	    |          +-etc
		 |	    |	       +-lib
	         |          |          +-man
	         |          |          +-src
	         |          +-lib
	         |          +-man
	         |          +-include
                 |	    +-src------+-bin
	         |          |          +-lib
	         |          |          +-linux
	         |          |          +-usr.bin
	         |          |          +-usr.lib
		 |          +-tmp

	As you might have guessed, a large part of this is just tree.
	/usr/local is all empty, /usr/bin has very few files in it, and
	/mnt, /lib, /home, and /tmp are empty.

	The bulk of the files are in /bin, with all the devices in
	/dev, obviously.  /etc also contains some barebones config
	files.  (passwd, profile, rc, etc.)

7)	tar and compress are in /bin, since they are necessary to the
	restoring of a toasted partition.  (gotta get the backups
	somewhere!)  Make sense to everyone?

*)	What do people think of a few shell scripts, such as 'mktree',
	'mkdev', 'install', etc, as part of the /INSTALL directory?

	mktree would create a blank directory tree on a clean
	partition, mkdev would create the standard devices (similar to
	the MAKEDEV suggestion made by someone earlier.) and install
	would copy over the files from the root floppy to a partition
	mounted on /mnt (or specified, if the root floppy is mounted as
	/mnt instead of being booted from.)

	If anyone is willing to write these, go ahead and send
	something to me.  Be forewarned that it will probably be
	hacked up a fair bit to fit with what I already have.

I'll cut myself off here, to collect my thoughts some more and give
you plenty of time for feedback.  I expect the release of 0.95a by the
end of next week at the absolute latest, with early next week as more
likely, so go ahead and flood my mailbox.

(Also, at least until Monday, cc: your messages to the Linux Standards
list concering this to me as well, in case abc doesn't get around to
adding me to the list until next Monday.)
Jim Winstead Jr. (CSci '95)	| "Catch a fish!"
Harvey Mudd College		| 	-Geddy Lee,
jwinstea@jarthur.Claremont.EDU	| 	 San Diego Sports Arena
Disclaimer: Mine, not theirs!	| 	 January 20, 1992

From Sat Mar 14 01:22:04 1992
Return-Path: <>
Received: from TSX-11.MIT.EDU by with SMTP (PP) 
          id <>; Sat, 14 Mar 1992 01:21:38 -0500
Received: by tsx-11.MIT.EDU with sendmail-5.61/1.2, id AA01337;
          Sat, 14 Mar 92 01:21:27 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 01:21:27 -0500
From: tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o)
Message-Id: <9203140621.AA01337@tsx-11.MIT.EDU>
To: "Jim Winstead Jr." <jwinstea@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
In-Reply-To: jwinstea@jarthur.Claremont.EDU's message of Fri, 13 Mar 92 21:34:55 PST, 
Subject: Re: Linux v0.95a and the ABC-Release
Address: 1 Amherst St., Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: (617) 253-8091

Well, your comments look on target to me, as far as the structure on the
Root-system diskette.  At least as far as my imaging of what the ABC
release is all about, I don't think that it necessarily obsoletes it.
My vision of the ABC-release is that it would be a large, comprehensive
release of binaries and sources for Linux, so we're talking about a file
hierarchy much larger than the 1.2 meg root image floppy.  The keeper of
this release would worry about getting the latest sources from authors,
making sure that utilities such as "ps" work with the latest kernel that
has been released, etc., etc.  Of course, that's my vision only.  You
should ask other people, in particular Alan Clegg ( if
that's what they had in mind when they saw the words "ABC Release".

					- Ted

From Sat Mar 14 01:47:27 1992
Return-Path: <>
Received: from JARTHUR.CLAREMONT.EDU by with SMTP (PP) 
          id <>; Sat, 14 Mar 1992 01:47:10 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 22:46:01 PST
From: "Jim Winstead Jr." <jwinstea@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Subject: A Small Correction

I said something silly about my root-floppy distribution "obsoleting"
the ABC-Release.  This is a case of my brain skipping a few steps in
drawing some conclusions, and Ted (tytso) has straightened me out on

ABC-Release:	Big distribution/organization of binaries and sources.
		This would include much of the /usr tree.

Linux 0.95a:	Boot (by Linus) and Root (by me) floppies with the bare
		minimum needed for installing Linux on a system.  This
		would include, besides the kernel, most of the stuff
		you'd find on the root partition.  (/bin, /etc, /dev,
		and maybe in the future, /lib - shared libs!)

(A note on the bit about shared libs - definitely not in 0.95a, since
gcc 2.0 with shared libs is still in the alpha stages.  Once this hits
a release status, though, it will make the root floppy much easier to
fit things onto.)

This is, of course, only how I see things.  If you think differently,
feel free to tell me.  (And remember, I'm not on the list yet, so cc:
things to me if they pertain to what I say, at least for the time
Jim Winstead Jr. (CSci '95)    | "Catch a fish!"
Harvey Mudd College            |  -Geddy Lee,
jwinstea@jarthur.Claremont.EDU |   San Diego Sports Arena
Disclaimer: Mine, not theirs!  |   January 20, 1992

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO v IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb: