Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Aug 2008 23:33 UTC, submitted by Charles Wilson
Editorial GoboLinux is a distribution which sports a different file system structure than 'ordinary' Linux distributions. In order to remain compatible with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, symbolic links are used to map the GoboLinux tree to standard UNIX directories. A post in the GoboLinux forums suggested that it might be better to turn the concept around: retain the FHS, and then use symbolic links to map the GoboLinux tree on top of it. This sparked some interesting discussion. Read on for more details.
Permalink for comment 327321
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Much ado about nothing
by ichi on Tue 19th Aug 2008 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Much ado about nothing"
Member since:

The system can keep track of the system files in a directory called "settings" not just in "etc". It can also keep track of software in "programs" and not just /usr/bin. In fact the system doesn't give a damn about the name of the directories at all. So why don't we just call them what they are used for? Don't tell me that "init.d" is better than "bootscripts". So why no change? Because the old hardcore users should learn something new?

No, because scripts in /etc/init.d aren't just bootscripts, settings in /etc don't include user settings and /usr/bin doesn't hold programs, just their binaries.

Should I call techsupport just because my OS has cryptic directory names and I can't find my way around because of it?

But is people really having problems with the classic unix names? Because I don't see such a thing happening.

We could just aswell rename "integrals" to "Calculation Of The Area Defined By A Function Between Two Given Points In A Cartesian Map", but that wouldn't make them any easier to solve, would it?

that doesn't mean that we should keep the old one to the end of times.

Agreed, but until someone comes with a good reason I'd rather stick with the current scheme.

Reply Parent Score: 3