Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Aug 2008 23:33 UTC, submitted by Charles Wilson
Permalink for comment 327246
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-10-08
This idea isn't generally bad, but its major problem would be the inconsistency of the naming conventions and hierarchy layouts among the different Linux distributions. While most of the arbitrary (but well intended) names of directories are quite the same, their content or their presence may differ. For example, some distributions feature /opt, others don't; some place libraries here, others there.
(By the way, PC-BSD has done something similar to FreeBSD with their packages installed via the PBI system - introducing /Programs while keeping the compatibility to the standard system hierarchy.)
While I do like this concept in general, sometimes I feel if there's a need to do this. On one hand, the users who are familiar with the Linux / UNIX file system hierarchy don't need (and even don't want) complicated names for the places they need to access; on the other hand, novice users who nearly generally live within their home directory feel no need to dive into the system's hierarchy - why should they?