Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th May 2012 14:55 UTC
General Unix James Hague: "But all the little bits of complexity, all those cases where indecision caused one option that probably wasn't even needed in the first place to be replaced by two options, all those bad choices that were never remedied for fear of someone somewhere having to change a line of code... They slowly accreted until it all got out of control, and we got comfortable with systems that were impossible to understand." Counterpoint by John Cook: "Some of the growth in complexity is understandable. It's a lot easier to maintain an orthogonal design when your software isn't being used. Software that gets used becomes less orthogonal and develops diagonal shortcuts." If there's ever been a system in dire need of a complete redesign, it's UNIX and its derivatives. A mess doesn't even begin to describe it (for those already frantically reaching for the comment button, note that this applies to other systems as well).
Thread beginning with comment 519711
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr
by Alfman on Mon 28th May 2012 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kurkosdr"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kurkosdr
by tidux on Tue 29th May 2012 03:51 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kurkosdr
by Doc Pain on Tue 29th May 2012 04:52 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

I shouldn't have to have to store all /home/ directories on one disk for example.


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).

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.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kurkosdr
by tidux on Tue 29th May 2012 10:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kurkosdr"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

"man hier" is present on Debian-based systems as well, although it describes the Linux Filesystem Hierarchy Standard instead of FreeBSD's layout.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kurkosdr
by Vanders on Tue 29th May 2012 10:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


Linux has supported bind mounts since kernel 2.4.0

Reply Parent Score: 2