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 505609
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Yes, going against the grain is hard. The wood isn't going to change it's nature for you. Others aren't going to use your indirection standard so you can ignore the existing standard. Invisible redirection standard is by redefinition less clear than the filesystem standard we have now.

I think you will find it very fustrating to go against the grain like this. You will just end up raging against others not doing as you ask for your project. Blaming them for your difficulties. Save yourself, if you still can!

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:


I think your missing the point: it's not about the difficulty, it's about continually discussing and working on ways of making linux better. You seem to indicate that it's good enough for you, therefor other's like me shouldn't bother tackling it to suit our needs. But my opinion is that complacency might be holding linux back. It's not to discredit the achievements of the past by any means, but we also need to look forward. I'm not alone in wanting more consistency in the file system, and I'm glad others like GoboLinux are working on ways to try to clean things up a bit.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabjoe Member since:

I don't think the file hierarchy needs to be seen by most users. The UI guides them to stay in home and provides drives not mounts (though of course they are really mounts). They have UIs to configure things. Any users more advanced than that can understand the file hierarchy, it is not hard, very little to read. So who is this for?

The difficulty can not be dismissed. Cutting the wood how you want regardless of grain, just makes crappy furniture.
The difficult is not in the changing of decades and decades of code (which you aren't going to be able to do, so you will need a legacy tree). The difficult is getting everyone to commit to such a large body of work for so little gain. They won't agree to a all new hierarchy, and they won't agree to some indirection standard. Even if the world wasn't what it is and you convinced the majority of developers to change, there will still be enough that you have to do a legacy tree, making your system more complex than what was there before as it requires both and to understand how they interact.

We already have a mess like this with audio. OSS, ALSA and PA. Revolution doesn't work. If the Linux audio guys had evolved OSS instead of made ALSA, they would have come to something like OSSv4 and we wouldn't have this mess.

I can see you are determined and single minded when you have committed to something, like myself, but you are on the wrong track and I hope you don't waste years on this. You have been calm and patient making your point, that bodes well, so maybe you can see what I'm saying and avoid this time/life sink.

Reply Parent Score: 2