Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hard coded file tree?

This topic is 5234 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I hear lots of folks griping about how crazy the typical Linux file tree is organized, with wierd names like /usr, /var, /etc, but if so many people don''t like it why isn''t there any distros that are doing it different (if there are then I haven''t heard of them)? Is it hard-coded somewhere? Does the kernel REQUIRE that the directory tree be layed out like that? If so then that doesn''t sound like good programming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t think anyone complains about the layout, its pretty Unix standard. What people do complain about is people not using the standard (not putting apps in /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin, etc).

While the kernel doesn''t require it (maybe just the /proc directory), so much software is coded to use certain directories it would probably be a nightmare to change without issues.

But why change it? *grin*

Int.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The kernel assumes /proc, and there is devfs that assumes /dev. I assume that linux assumes init is in /sbin.

It''s pretty common for apps to have compile-time coded paths in them, which are typically adjustable using configure. There is also a standard for config files, which is to search ~/.apprc and then /etc/app.conf or /etc/app.rc.

Not that the filesystem is really that crazy in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
you don´t even need to name the directories /usr, /bin, /yaddayadda, i read that somewhere, though.
i think where the stuff is located is in the configuration files, sorry if doesn´t helps a lot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
There is NO motivation to do it any differently.

Nobody wants it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just moved /home to /users and created a symblink called /home to /users and it works fine, so that guy''s idea is completely possible.

My friend Ordinary Joe said he''d like clear readable directory names better than /usr and /var and /etc. My other friend Nix Zealot said /usr and /var and /etc are just fine. I say to each his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey that is a pretty cool article there.

I''ve also wondered about the Unix hier. When I first looked in Unix one of the big things going around was massive file names with any character but the ''/''. And then one day I install FreeBSD and I see files like /tmp and /dev. What gives? Where''s the full usage of all those characters and stuff? What about /Temp..or Tempory-Files? and /Devices? But I soon cam to relise that it''s more Unix philosphy to keep it simple stupid. Small and short programs and everything else.

Anyways, Some of you might not know this but a /dev file or dir is required by the Single UNIX stantard.

Another thing, as along as your Shells enviorment path settings were set correctly you could have /System/Programs/ and /Daemons/ and /Systems/Libaries and such.

Actully I might try this some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites