Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th May 2009 19:17 UTC
Ask OSNews is apparently quite popular among you guys; the questions just keep on coming in. Since David took on the first two, we decided to let me handle this one - it's an area I've personally covered before on OSNews: file system layouts. One of our readers, a Linux veteran, studied the GoboLinux effort to introduce a new filesystem layout, and wondered: "Why not adopt the more sensible file system from GoboLinux as the new LSB standard?"
Thread beginning with comment 365925
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-26
There are 30 years of accumulated wisdom in the current layout.
The problem is that it's not really 30 years of accumulated wisdom. It's simply wisdom from 30 years ago. And it provides solutions to problems that aren't applicable to a modern desktop.
This type of thinking is endemic to Linux development. That's why every Linux desktop still runs a graphics stack that favors network transparency over hardware acceleration.
RE[3]: Down with the FHS
by strcpy on Fri 29th May 2009 06:03
in reply to "RE[2]: Down with the FHS"
Member since:2009-05-20
But if something has existed in computing for thirty years, it certainly is an asset, not an obstacle.
And Linux is derived from UNIX, the ideal type of a system that has proven itself for decades. Nothing else in the realm of operating systems has had such a profound effect on design and implementation of operating systems.
And here are people like you demanding to destroy tradition in the name of perceived progress, always bringing the mythical Desktop and usability to the table.
Changing a file system hierarchy is not an innovation, and a file system hierarchy should have absolutely nothing to do with a so-called Desktop.
Edited 2009-05-29 06:10 UTC
RE[3]: Down with the FHS
by asmoore82 on Sat 30th May 2009 03:28
in reply to "RE[2]: Down with the FHS"
Member since:2009-03-11
The problem is that it's not really 30 years of accumulated wisdom. It's simply wisdom from 30 years ago. And it provides solutions to problems that aren't applicable to a modern desktop.
It's actually 40 YEARS OF ACCUMULATED WISDOM.
I can purge my system of locally compiled software by
simply deleting /usr/local whilst simultaneously causing
no damage whatsoever to the packaged software.
Your statement is pure, concentrated ignorance.
On Windows, if you think for one second that you can rid
yourself of all traces of software by using "Add/Remove"
AND/OR deleting its folder in "Program Files,"
that is just more fantastic ignorance.
This type of thinking is endemic to Linux development.
You may be right - it's those darn developers -
they should immediately start thinking like
lawyers, prostitutes and/or carpenters!
On second thought, wouldn't computing be better off if
we just eliminated those pesky developers altogether?
That's why every Linux desktop still runs a graphics stack that favors network transparency over hardware acceleration.
All of my Linux systems have both.
And I actually use both on a daily basis.
I have and enjoy the best of both worlds, so what's the big problem?
Please, what is so broken that needs fixing?
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
It's not worth quibbling over such a distinction. No matter what name you choose, there will be exceptions unless you just want to call it 'stuff'. 'bin' is short, concise and easy to type.
The choice of usr as a name was questionable, but I'm not really sure what else you'd call it frankly. One reason for its existence is that it should be sharable over NFS amongst multiple boxes.
/svr is suppose to be for read-only files. /var is for read-write. That said, almost no packagers actually follow the spec here. Again, /svr is supposed to be sharable via NFS.
The stuff under /etc aren't necessarily config files. The init system lives in there for one. Yes, while it is used for configuration, the init script are not themselves configuration files. It also often gets used as a dumping ground for ad hoc scripts written by systems admins for backups, reports, ETC (emphasis intended).
I don't think spelling everything out, capitalization and using naive categorization schemes really adds anything useful. There are 30 years of accumulated wisdom in the current layout. Wanting to throw it all away reminds of me fresh out school CS graduates that always want to throw the existing code base away and start over because everyone before them were obviously idiots.