Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Jan 2012 20:39 UTC
General Unix Finally something really interesting to talk about. If you've used UNIX or any of its derivatives, you've probably wondered why there's /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin in the file system. You may even have a rationalisation for the existence of each and every one of these directories. The thing is, though - all these rationalisations were thought up after these directories were created. As it turns out, the real reasoning is pretty damn straightforward.
Permalink for comment 505195
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: why not / instead of /usr
by phoenix on Mon 30th Jan 2012 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: why not / instead of /usr"
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

I understand the problem domain perfectly. I support over 3000 diskless Linux stations as my day job. And every day I fight with the asinine Linux directory structure (coming from a FreeBSD background where things make sense).

We share out / via NFS, including /etc. And /usr, /var, /home are also shared via NFS. And other filesystems.

If you're going to amalgamate directories, then leaving / with a bunch of empty directories and symlinks is not the way to do it.

I've read all the mailing list threads about this project, and all of the reasonings given boil down to "this is how we're doing it, deal with it". There's no actual, good, solid, evidence-based reasons given.

Yes, Linux filesystem hierarchy is a mess. But this doesn't do anything to help fix that.

Reply Parent Score: 1