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.
Thread beginning with comment 505165
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
About time...
by Aristocracies on Mon 30th Jan 2012 21:05 UTC
Aristocracies
Member since:
2010-06-15

Thankfully more people are catching onto that perhaps there's a bit of a legacy mess here. I think Fedora 17 has the right idea here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove

That's the best approach I've heard suggested that isn't something alienating like GoboLinux.

Reply Score: 4

RE: About time...
by shmerl on Mon 30th Jan 2012 21:21 in reply to "About time..."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

So why to /usr/bin and not to /bin then?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: About time...
by Aristocracies on Mon 30th Jan 2012 21:31 in reply to "RE: About time..."
Aristocracies Member since:
2010-06-15

I've answered this here: http://www.osnews.com/permalink?505180

But in case you also want to hear it from more official people: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMe...

It simply makes more sense to do it /usr, that way it is possible to contain everything of that nature onto its own separate file system that could then be snapshotted, shared and mounted however you need it. Symlinking /bin, /sbin, etc into /usr gives you additional compatibility as a freebie since everything will exist in both locations.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: About time...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 30th Jan 2012 22:44 in reply to "RE: About time..."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

That was my thought as well, and It was answered pretty well in the wiki faq linked above a couple of days ago. Apparently, someone changed the explanation.

The old explanation was that everyone else that had fixed this issue had moved everything into /usr, so to be compatible with all of them (mostly solaris), they were going to follow suite.

That made sense to me.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: About time...
by tuaris on Tue 31st Jan 2012 01:25 in reply to "About time..."
tuaris Member since:
2007-08-05

While I approve of Fedora 17's idea, I still think that GoboLinux still has the best idea thus far. Why make things cryptic and messy on purpose? in GoboLinux you know the programs are stored in /Programs

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: About time...
by Alfman on Tue 31st Jan 2012 03:34 in reply to "RE: About time..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

tuaris,

Thank you so much for the pointer to GoboLinux, it's a great concept!! In my own distro I faced many similar challenges when I tried to modernize the legacy paths since so many applications hard code them.

I found using symbolic links worked, but that's very unclean when the namespace is cluttered with both the old and new paths. I see that GoboLinux solves this with a new kernel feature called GoboHide, which provides an element of backwards compatibility while cleaning directory listings.

http://gobolinux.org/index.php?page=doc/articles/gobohide

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: About time...
by Lennie on Tue 31st Jan 2012 11:53 in reply to "About time..."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Fedora 17 is actually the reason for the lwn article, the hackersnews article, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: About time...
by Soulbender on Wed 1st Feb 2012 04:52 in reply to "About time..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

In a way that makes even less sense. Why not just put everything in /?

Reply Parent Score: 2