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 505429
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jabjoe
Member since:
2009-05-06

Or Solution C, KISS, just stick with the standard as you are going to have to anyway.

It's not unreasonable things have hard coded paths to the standard location. The problem isn't those following the standard, it's those breaking it. Bend the standard, maybe campaign for revision. Evolution not revolution.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jabjoe,

"It's not unreasonable things have hard coded paths to the standard location. The problem isn't those following the standard, it's those breaking it. Bend the standard, maybe campaign for revision. Evolution not revolution."

It is unreasonable when the paths don't reflect the legitimate organizational requirements of your distro/system.

You'll have to admit that for many, the hierarchy is full of legacy decisions and exceptional logic, which is a source of chaos. It's not unreasonable to want the ability to clean that up moving forward.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

It is unreasonable when the paths don't reflect the legitimate organizational requirements of your distro/system.


Then the question has to be why doesn't the organizational requirements of the distro match the software that will be used with it? All bar a few of the other distros manage it...

You'll have to admit that for many, the hierarchy is full of legacy decisions and exceptional logic, which is a source of chaos.


I don't believe this is the case for people who actually read what the standard is.

The origins maybe, but things are bashed around to fit and have a sensible purpose. It is damn right amazing it is as simple and logical as it is after so much time and evolution. I read it and I could believe someone designed it to be like that today (with typing in mind admittedly), not that it was from over 40 years of evolution. For computers especially, that is damn right gob smacking.

Imagine what it would be like if it was a stack of reinventions. The horror of 40 years of revolutions.

It's not unreasonable to want the ability to clean that up moving forward.


I'm sorry, but you aren't, least not from my point of view. You are creating yet another one, then hiding the standard one you must have, making everything worse for anyone who has to pop the hood.

Reply Parent Score: 2