Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)
#2Hm, not to be confused with the Linux Filesystem Hierarchy Standard: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs.html
... which is referenced in hier(7) https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/hier.7.html
... which is itself referenced in file-hierarchy(7) https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/latest/file... (which is the first place I look things up these days).
Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)
#3I still think it’s funny how what used to be the location of user home directories, namely /usr, has been retconned to be where the majority of binaries are stored.
Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)
#4> your file system got damaged so badly that the files were mutilated beyond recognition
:D
Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)
#5Hm, not to be confused with the Linux Filesystem Hierarchy Standard: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs.html ... which is referenced in hier(7) https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/hier.7.html ... which is itself referenced in file-hierarchy(7) https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/latest/file... (which is the first place I look things up these days).
[deleted]
Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)
#6I still think it’s funny how what used to be the location of user home directories, namely /usr, has been retconned to be where the majority of binaries are stored.
I didn't know this. I had never seen it. I've used Linux for many years, but not an expert by any means. But it peeked my curiosity, and I found the explanation in this answer satisfying: https://askubuntu.com/a/135679
Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)
#7The equivalent for Haiku OS, without decades of legacy, conflicts, changes, history, backwards compatibility:
https://www.haiku-os.org/docs/userguide/en/filesystem-layout...
This shows you what Linux could be if it were redesigned from scratch without layers of patches/fixes. Nice, simple, and due to dynamically mounted read only package system, read-only actually means read only.
Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)
#8complementary openbsd resource:
some differences:
* openbsd does not use a /boot/ partition. instead it uses the bsd.* files in root.
* no /proc/ in its entirety in openbsd. use sysctl(3) instead.
* current openbsd does not have a separate /var/tmp/; it is a symbolic link to /tmp/.
Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)
#9I still think it’s funny how what used to be the location of user home directories, namely /usr, has been retconned to be where the majority of binaries are stored.
The story went something like, the guys building UNIX got a second hard drive, so they moved the home directories (/usr) to it. As the system grew, they started dropping more binaries into /usr/bin (while trying to keep /bin for things needed to boot/rescue the system, in case the disk with /usr failed). The rest is history.
Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)
#10complementary openbsd resource: https://man.openbsd.org/hier some differences: * openbsd does not use a /boot/ partition. instead it uses the bsd.* files in root. * no /proc/ in its entirety in openbsd. use sysctl(3) instead. * current openbsd does not have a separate /var/tmp/; it is a symbolic link to /tmp/.
Note the (2004). Some things were removed/added/changed (/initrd, /sys, several things in /usr). Check https://linux.die.net/man/7/hier> for an up-to-date resource.