Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)

tldp.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)

#61

Post by em-bee »

_chu1 wrote: post #60
em-bee wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right. what early distributions were doing was creating subdirectories within /mnt, but that got in the way when users wanted to mount something manually. at least it did bother me. personally i wish /media would have stuck. i find the current paths /run/media/username/device rather unpractical. whenever i connect a data device i have to go searching for the mountpoint.

Things lile this are why I use Windows daily. I can assign a specific USB mass storage device a letter it will always use and I memorize it.

you can assign a mountpoint to specific devices on linux too. that's not a new feature.

giving sensible defaults to automatic mounts is the issue here.

Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)

#62

Post by nilslindemann »

nishs wrote: post #59
nilslindemann wrote: post #44

The fundamental errors of this are: * It is hierarchical. * It sorts by file type, not by namespace.

by namespace do you roughly mean package?

I mean spaces where we put things belonging to a name. When I look at the bin folder on my system, I am mostly: "what the heck are these?" If each of these binaries were in a folder, for example "Python" (that's the namespace), together with their sources, configuration, documentation, etc., I could easily explore this small aspect of the system.

Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)

#63

Post by taskforcegemini »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #37
jmclnx wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't Red Hat/Fedora ignoring these standards ? I noticed /run is not even mentioned. I wish Linux would go back to what I consider a sane Hierarchy :) Similar to what OpenBSD has. These days seems Red Hat is deciding what the Hierarchy is instead of the community.

Fedora isn't the "community"?

it is run by RedHat, so no, not in this context

Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)

#64

Post by nishs »

nilslindemann wrote: post #62
nishs wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

by namespace do you roughly mean package?

I mean spaces where we put things belonging to a name. When I look at the bin folder on my system, I am mostly: "what the heck are these?" If each of these binaries were in a folder, for example "Python" (that's the namespace), together with their sources, configuration, documentation, etc., I could easily explore this small aspect of the system.

some linux distributions, such as GoboLinux (which, i think, was mentioned elsewhere in the comments, too), do this.

from gobolinux.org:

> GoboLinux is a modular Linux distribution: it organizes the programs in your system in a new, logical way. Instead of having parts of a program thrown at /usr/bin, other parts at /etc and yet more parts thrown at /usr/share/something/or/another, each program gets its own directory tree, keeping them all neatly separated and allowing you to see everything that's installed in the system and which files belong to which programs in a simple and obvious way.

Re: Linux Filesystem Hierarchy (2004)

#65

Post by nilslindemann »

nishs wrote: post #64
nilslindemann wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean spaces where we put things belonging to a name. When I look at the bin folder on my system, I am mostly: "what the heck are these?" If each of these binaries were in a folder, for example "Python" (that's the namespace), together with their sources, configuration, documentation, etc., I could easily explore this small aspect of the system.

some linux distributions, such as GoboLinux (which, i think, was mentioned elsewhere in the comments, too), do this. from gobolinux.org: > GoboLinux is a modular Linux distribution: it organizes the programs in your system in a new, logical way. Instead of having parts of a program thrown at /usr/bin, other parts at /etc and yet more parts thrown at /usr/share/something/or/another, each program gets its own directory…

Thank you, very interesting!
Post reply on HN