To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I fail to see what bugs that would prevent or what problems would be significantly easier to fix. Not that it's necessarily a bad idea, but I fail to see what you win.
If you're going to do something like that, why not go all the way and use a solution closer to what OS X uses.
> I fail to see what bugs that would prevent or what problems would be significantly easier to fix.
man, how much software depends on the file system?
making the file system easier to work with will affect every upstream software, from package managers to Open File dialogs.
Where is smb.conf on my computer? Can you help me with it? File search says there are two. Do you know why? Come on, give me a break. The complexity of the linux file system design is causing headaches in places we cannot even comprehend.
I just searched the firefox bugzilla for the first relevant thing to come to mind, "usr". There are too many bugs to display. I just picked one: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=246672
I've seen bugs like that for longer than I can remember. Mozilla.org released builds should look for plugins in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins. SuSE uses /usr/lib/browser-plugins, according to Hendikins. Someone in FC2 reported the plugins were in mozilla-1.6/plugins, and mozilla/plugins was empty. Holy shit, lets get some standards that make sense.
How many bugs would have never existed it present unnecessary complexity never existed? It might be possible to guess. My guess is a lot. How many tech support problems would have been easier without that complexity? Again my guess is "a lot"!
Actually, it would remove some features -- just to mention 3:
- being able to put /usr on a remote filesystem
- keeping superuser-only files out of normal user's paths
- being able to keep non-package-manager-installed files from those installed by the package manager
But I guess you might argue that these aren't common use-cases and thus not compelling enough reasons to put binaries in different directories. But I guess I don't see a compelling enough reason to sacrifice features like this to accommodate the odd situation where someone needs to know where their executable is. I just don't see how it's that big of an issue.
Seems like the real issue is that the FHS is not well enough defined or followed. I wonder how many distros even have a clear standard for how they define the hierarchy?





Member since:
2007-03-30
Except your mutation of my analogy isn't correct. For example, simply moving all user binary files to one directory with a human readable name makes the system more simple and prevents bugs, and it doesn't sacrifice any features.