Re: [9fans] Re: [sources] 20070410: % cat

["Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com>]

On 4/12/07, Anthony Sorace <anothy@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm having trouble understanding the motivation behind /cfg, as
> compared to /sys/lib/sysconfig. The later seems much more general
> (although i'm not clear on the pxe case specifically), as well as
> having the aesthetic benefit of not needlessly cluttering root.
>
> Am I missing something?

To start with, Plan 9 can handle as many things in the
root as you like.  It is not constrained by the size
of an rk05 or the time to fsck the root partition.

At the time, /cfg was deemed shorter to type.
There is no real difference, except that there
are programs that actually use /cfg and nothing
ever used /sys/lib/sysconfig.  It's too late to
turn back now.  I didn't really like /cfg at the
time, but I've gotten used to it, and I do believe
that part of why it gets used is the much
shorter name.

Russ