To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tidux,
"Wow, you really don't understand the Unix filesystem."
I don't think that the OP's opinion demonstrates any lack of understanding. For some *nix filesystems can seem cumbersome and it's a valid opinion.
For me, linux mounting is a nice abstraction, but sometimes I'm put off by the lack of overlays in the mainline kernel. I shouldn't have to have to store all /home/ directories on one disk for example. Overlooking several caveats, we can mimic overlays manually using symlinks, but linux's mount capabilities are occasionally inadequate.
A bigger problem for me is the standard linux directory hierarchy. I prefer an application centric hierarchy rather than one where everything is dumped together in the big /usr/bin soup pot.
Um... you don't have to put all the home directories on one disk. Nobody said you absolutely have to assign $HOME values within /home, although it is easiest.
http://sprunge.us/BUCV
That's the output of "df -h" on sdf.org, a NetBSD shell provider I use. My home directory isn't in /home at all, but in /arpa/tz.
You don't have to. Home directories can be spread across many disks, they can even be placed on "no (local) disk" (see NFS home).
True, there are options to do it differently. For example, PC-BSD utilizes a concept as what you are suggesting. Still this may have disadvantages, e. g. doubled and tripled libraries. But as hard disk space is cheap, nobody sees a problem in this.
However, the traditional layout has advantages and intended baheviour, even if it's hard to see this on modern Linux where, as you said, things tend to be thrown into one pot.
Allow me to point you to the FreeBSD file system hierarchy documentation, "man 7 hier", for a more detailed description about what the different directories should be used for:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=hier&sektion=7
In addition to them, some systems even use /opt (directory initially coming from Solaris, if I remember correctly) to manually manage software that is not handled by the system's software magement facilities, so avoiding problems with standard tools.
Linux has supported bind mounts since kernel 2.4.0





Member since:
2011-08-13
Assigning "/" to the hardrrive the OS is installed in and make everything else appear as a subfolder is silly
Wow, you really don't understand the Unix filesystem. The drive mounted as / is specified in /etc/fstab, and the physical drive files are located in /dev/. Some people mount /usr separately, some mount /var separately, and a lot of people using *nix at home mount /home separately. The beauty of the Unix filesystem is that nobody freaking cares what your partition scheme is unless you're running out of room. Mounting remote filesystems is completely transparent once they're mounted. Even NT does this internally; it only keeps drive letters as links because people are retarded and incapable of change.