| |
-159
|
|
|
Written by Ubuwu the 1 Apr 08 at 20:06.
Category: System.
Related to:
Nothing/Others.
Status: New
|
|
|
Description
Although this was copied from what is probably an april's fool joke, it directly made sense to me. The current directory structure is very confusing to new users and the one proposed below immediately makes sense to anyone:
/bin /system/executables
/boot /system/boot
/dev /system/devices
/etc /system/config
/lib /system/libraries
/home /users
/media /storage
/mnt /storage
/proc /system/processes
/root /users/Administrator
/sbin /system/executables/admin
/tmp /system/temporary
/usr /system/applications
(idea taken from http://blog.drinsama.de/erich/en/linux/debian/2008040101-renaming-directories.h tml)
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Eldmannen wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 21:14
|
Yeah, this is rather controversial and gets voted down immediately by the hardcore Unix guys.
I think that it is a good idea though...
It would make it a lot cleaner, and hide complexity.
|
|
Madman6510 wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 22:03
|
Unfortunately, this could not be changed without a HUGE amount of work, as it would require rewriting the entire UNIX directory structure, and requiring either compatability layers or emulators to run Linux software.
It just can't be done without making Ubuntu a completely different OS.
|
|
vexorian wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 23:22
| |
Tag it unimplementable.
|
|
vexorian wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 23:22
| |
Even if it was possible, I don't think it is a great idea.
|
|
alberge204 wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 05:59
|
With just a little familiarity with the directory structure, it begins to make sense, and you don't much miss the "My Documents" ways of Windows. The short names also make it easier to navigate around on the command line. (Compare `cd /sbin` to `cd /system/executables/admin`.) Changing the directory structure just isn't realistic.
Now, it's true that the directory structure can be confusing to new users. Instead of changing it, why not explain it more clearly? Say, include a guide like http://www.arsgeek.com/?p=520 in a "Finding your way around" section.
Actually, something like this is already in the Gutsy documentation under Introduction to the Desktop 6.6.1: / Working with Files / Managing Your Files and Folders / Directories and File Systems. Should it be more prominent? (It's a little hard to find.) Should it be more fully fleshed out, like the arsgeek guide? These are ideas you might want to suggest if you think it's important.
|
|
katti wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 09:46
| |
Definitely -1. Ubuntu is Linux, and should respect the Linux FHS.
|
|
jespdj wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 11:31
|
No, this is a bad idea.
Ubuntu / Linux is a Unix-like operating system. The structure of the filesystem on Ubuntu is more or less standard, it's more or less the same on all other Linux distributions and Unix-like operating systems.
It is NOT a good idea to invent your own, totally different filesystem structure. That would make Ubuntu a lot less compatible with other Unix-like operating systems. Most GNU software, for example, expects directories like /usr, /usr/local, /usr/share, /usr/lib etc. to exist, and changing the filesystem structure means a LOT of extra work to make these programs work properly on Ubuntu.
It would also make the system very confusing to people who are used to other Unix-like operating systems.
Note: You are not the first who posts this idea.
|
|
Endperform wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 11:50
|
Ah yes, the age old 'change the directory structure' battle, including an obligatory slam on those of us who think the structure is just fine. Rather than re-write my thoughts, I'll just refer you here:
http://www.endperform.org/2007/08/24/more-on-directory-structure/
The summary: Changing the core file structure would break a lot of things, cause a lot of headaches and potentially cost Ubuntu market share.
|
|
quadrox wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 19:13
|
I know my way around the unix directories pretty well, but I still think that in theory this is a good idea.
Granted, it is going to be painful in some way or other due to everyone being accustomed to the old system. But I think we can all agree that it is not the most intuitive system and could be structured a lot better. I think that eventually we (as in the unix/linux community) need to move along and redesign those things that are pure anachronisms (i.e. historical leftovers) and without any good reason.
It's hardly going to happen now, but eventually we should move on. Just create a second version of the standard and give everyone a couple of years where the old version must be accepted and the new version should, then eventually we can replace the old. If we don't start, we're not going to finish.
|
 saivann (Moderator) wrote on the 3 Apr 08 at 23:38
|
IMO, this is not realistic. The actual FHS is the result of years of evolution and this is now idealistic. We can't keep the advantages of the actual FHS and change the names to be more comprehensive at a first look. Personally, I would not change this very effective standard and cause all Linux programs in the world to have problems, being incompatible with UNIX standards and be less useful for command line only to avoid this first "how does that work" impression.
Also, why the overall person would like to know how these folders work. This is generally the computer task.
Basically, the overall user don't need to know and use these folders, the computer take care of this. Gnome/Kde can show folders in a way that is easy to understand and use. People should not need to modify files in these directories if ubuntu include sufficient tools to do what the user want, I believe that it's enough, always in my opinion of course :)
|
|
ebrahim wrote on the 11 May 08 at 17:07
|
Leave us alone with our dear Unix!
Do you know what does it mean to add some extra characters to almost all path strings?!
|
|
broomfighter wrote on the 12 May 08 at 06:14
| |
Hey, why not do both? How about we just set up a bunch of symbolic links and hide the stuff we don't want to see with metadata and a nautilus plugin? Forgive me if I don't know what I'm talking about
|
|
notyetroot wrote on the 10 Aug 08 at 19:14
| |
Yes, let's break backwards compatibility!
|
|
broomfighter wrote on the 21 Aug 08 at 11:01
| |
People, people, we can keep compatibility! We can have our cake and eat it, too! Proof: Gobolinux. Gobolinux uses symbolic links to maintain compatibility, while hiding them from the user with a kernel module that allows for hidden files. They get all the benefits of unix compatibility, without the confusion that comes with the FHS standard.
|
|
dlstyley wrote on the 23 Aug 08 at 02:14
|
As a newbie trying to learn about development on linux, I find it very confusing. I stubled on this thread looking for information about this very topic.
Found this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard
which is handy as a reference, but the structure doesn't seem very intuitive. On top of that, it seems like some programmers interpret the standards differently from others, which is probably a result of it not being very intuitive.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 23 Aug 08 at 04:00
|
Everyone knows my opinion on the matter surely by now.
I'll summarise it as:
1) The FHS isn't based on evolution, in fact, its never changed since the beginning really
2) The FHS makes no real sense unless you study it
3) Even when the FHS does make sense, its impossible in some cases to guess where files are located
+1
|
Post your comment
|
|
