simpler file layout

Using applications, configuring, problems
Message
Author
User avatar
Dougal
Posts: 2502
Joined: Wed 19 Oct 2005, 13:06
Location: Hell more grotesque than any medieval woodcut

#21 Post by Dougal »

I honestly don't understand what's complicated about the directory structure… as a newby (with no knowledge of how OS's work) I read the Linux Filesystem Hierarchy link and found it to make complete sense.

Pizza mentioned the many bin directories, but they all have different purposes, so you should know where to go and look for a certain app. As for /usr/local, that entire path has a very specific purpose.

Pizza: why does it make more sense to put a bin/lib in a dir and then create a link to it rather than put it in the PATH in the first place??

The thing I find most confusing is actually having app-dirs in /usr/local, which causes a mess (since you should only have dirs like "usr", "lib", "share" and so on in there).

GuestToo: yesterday I read that Gobo "I am not clueless" thing and I remain unconvinced.
He seemed to answer mostly stupid (hypothetical) questions (and not the things that don't make sense to me) while not explaining the advantages from a OS point of view -- all the while concentrating on showing he knows a lot of obscure OS's…

I think it is first of all a matter of personal taste. Some people like having all their clothes in a heap on the floor -- so they know everything is in one place-- while others like to have a closet with lots of drawers…
What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#22 Post by Pizzasgood »

Pizza: why does it make more sense to put a bin/lib in a dir and then create a link to it rather than put it in the PATH in the first place??
Organization. If I want to find out which files are part of some app, I go to it's directory, and there they are. Otherwise if I just threw it into */bin and */lib, I'd have to remember which files belong to it. It gets worse as more things are added. Also, this way if I'm exploring */bin or */lib and see something, I can check where it's linked to to find out what it is. Saves a trip to Google.
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#23 Post by sunburnt »

Both types of dir. structures work well, each has advantages.
Being from Win., & like others who have a "tidy" complex, mixing apps. isn't tidy.

But then if you want to backup your entire system configuration... Linux is a snap.

If you want another setup type, do as Apple did & use a dir. overlay to make it appear different.
This has none of the problems of actually trying to change the structure (feed back links, etc.).
Gobo Linux uses a mix of techniques to accomplish this, some real, some links, etc.

amish
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun 24 Sep 2006, 23:15

#24 Post by amish »

i was all in favor of a different layout until i read the linuxcommand.org tutorial. after that, the "complicated" layout made perfect sense. so now i have reservations about the change, but i assume the puppy community will eventually change it, and i'm sure it will be tolerable.

it will be a lot more tolerable if there is a fore-warning, and someone documents the change properly, without having to download the iso and see for yourself. p.s. find / -depth | grep what.to.look.for
sadly, it is not possible to separate politics from free software. free software - politics = unfree software.

User avatar
Dougal
Posts: 2502
Joined: Wed 19 Oct 2005, 13:06
Location: Hell more grotesque than any medieval woodcut

#25 Post by Dougal »

Pizzasgood wrote: Organization. If I want to find out which files are part of some app, I go to it's directory, and there they are. Otherwise if I just threw it into */bin and */lib, I'd have to remember which files belong to it. It gets worse as more things are added. Also, this way if I'm exploring */bin or */lib and see something, I can check where it's linked to to find out what it is. Saves a trip to Google.
I see it the other way round: if I want to look for icons -- I go to the icons dir. I want a library -- to the lib dir. Etc.

Finding what a certain package includes can be done from the file-lists in the tarball in the Pupget repository… besides, it's the kind of thing needed by us when we're playing around, but irrelevant for the running of the OS.

Amish: I think you can rest assured that the Puppy filesystem won't change… not only does it require Barry's not liking things the way they are now (who knows what he thinks?), but it's a lot of work that is, in the end, not worth the effort.
What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind

marksouth2000
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006, 20:43

#26 Post by marksouth2000 »

miriam wrote:
Linux is the best-scaling operating system in history.
It is nice to be enthusiastic, but that isn't quite right. There are plenty of other operating systems that scale brilliantly -- as well as, and sometimes better than, Linux.
Actually, it is quite right. Enthusiasm can be rationally based, you know.

Presently, Linux scales from tiny embedded systems (like the phone in my pocket right now) to the Google cluster, which is believed to contain almost a quarter of a million nodes. Take a look at the top-500 supercomputers list. Nearly all of them are running Linux. CERN will be using Linux clusters to handle several TB/hour when the beam is turned back on next year (2007). That's heavier network traffic than anything ever seen before. CERN already holds several records for sustained transatlantic data transfer rates. Can you guess what OS platform they used?

Something must have been done right.
Come on Mark. I've read a lot of your posts. (I'm a long-time lurker.) You are a smart guy.
If you think that I'm smart, the optimal course of action would be to respect and consider my opinions even when I am disagreeing with you.

Now, if you still care to put any flesh on the bones of this discussion, the real question is, what would be gained by re-organising the FHS? And would it be a net gain or a net loss?

Cheers,
Mark

marksouth2000
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006, 20:43

#27 Post by marksouth2000 »

GuestToo wrote:
when one sees something has been built by other people that one doesn't understand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
In Latin, and in English, "ad hominem" denotes an attack on a specific individual. The use of the indefinite pronoun means this cannot be an ad hominem attack. If I say "anyone who disagrees with me is a fool" I am being harsh, but it cannot be interpreted as ad hominem.
It's good news for Puppy that practically everyone who visits the forum has a clearer idea of how a filesystem should work than Ken Thomson, Dennis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan, Andrew Tanenbaum, and Linus Torvalds put together
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Well, no. More like appeal to Occam's razor by the use of irony. That said, there is a reason that those people are considered to be authorities in their field, and appeal to authority is how most of society functions (eg, law courts, hospitals), so don't knock it, unless you would prefer to appeal to the authority of Wikipedia....

Mixing a whole bunch of quotes from different people together and then dismissing each with a single line from Wikipedia is merely a rhetorical device to associate the arguments with each other. It doesn't address the merits or otherwise of the individual arguments themselves.

Don't you find it contradictory that you (deceptively) dismiss my comments as if they are a personal attack on someone, yet the strongest emotional and pejorative language has come from very few contributors in this thread? Examples are "insane" and "evil" to describe perfectly rational choices made by the Unix and Linux designers.

Yes, other file systems and structures can be conceived. Are the existing ones bad? No. Is it worth changing them? No, the costs exceed the gains (if there are any) at this stage.

Mark

User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

#28 Post by Flash »

I hope this isn't going to degenerate into a flame war. :lol:

It should be made clear for the benefit of beginners who may be trying to figure out what we're so excited about, that the Linux file "system" we're arguing about is not the filesystems such as ext2, ext3 and so forth. As I understand it, the Linux file "system" that is visible to the user, with its cryptic and unhelpful names, is (a miserable failure of) an attempt to present files sorted or arranged into a form convenient for human use. :) It is only connected to those underlying filesystems by the fact that it makes use of them.

Marksouth, what is rational about making permanent a top-level directory called etc? The name suggests nothing and everything. I could go on. :wink:

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#29 Post by Pizzasgood »

And now we have a very good example of why the filesystem isn't consistent. Nobody agrees :lol:
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

User avatar
klhrevolutionist
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 10:09

#30 Post by klhrevolutionist »

I have to agree that changing the structure would be a good idea for security reasons. Though others would say well then this or that ....

It is an idea that needs to be considered, though it won't with the mainstream..
Heaven is on the way, until then let's get the truth out!

User avatar
Gn2
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon 16 Oct 2006, 05:33
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

#31 Post by Gn2 »

I hope this isn't going to degenerate into a flame war.
With that firmly in mind > It may be wise to stop throwing in non - helpful personal inflamatory asides : I.E.
with its cryptic and unhelpful names, is (a miserable failure of)
What the root level configuration folder was named is totally irrelevant

Example - Why is MarkS being targeted to defend any viewpoint - AFAICS he is only one of several who have
stated logical disclaimers of original contentions - others then jumped on band-wagon to berate present standards as
Evil - insane ...on & on > to what good for the community at large ?

As was stressed - I may not agree -but will defend anybodies right to discuss anything - if done in non-inflamatory...
Or as MarkS POLITELY noted should be presented in non- pejorative mode. ?

What was important - a standard usable for all -

" Why " (etc) was chosen folder name becomes evident -
The long standing 'NIX tradition of names indicating purpose
E.G. "Less" is more - "Born(e)-again command interpreter - break -cut -diff and then"gawk" > EVAL- =
Look at all CLI names. - Figure it out for yourself

Where to store most system configurations = etc etc etc !

If a user wants everything just "lumped" to-gather ~ use static libraries
Don't like something - CHANGE IT Who the ---- has restricted any of your rights to do so ?

Of those who may have the ability - Who here has done so ?
How many have extensively used Linux before "discovering" Puppy !

If the fits of shoo - irritates = change of foo-ware may be needed -( Please - don't blame the Chandelry supplier if ) you are See -sic

marksouth2000
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006, 20:43

#32 Post by marksouth2000 »

Flash wrote:I hope this isn't going to degenerate into a flame war. :lol:
...
Marksouth, what is rational about making permanent a top-level directory called etc? The name suggests nothing and everything. I could go on. :wink:
Flash, the topic started as a flame war from the very first post.

To answer your actual question, it's rational because it served the purpose for which the designers included it. They had several directories in / called bin, lib, tmp, usr, sys and dev. Those were for binaries, libraries, temporary files, user files and applications, system files, and device nodes respectively. They needed a directory under root for configuration of other stuff, and they chose to call it etc. They could have called it stuff or misc or conf if they liked. "etc" is as good as those and easy to type, and seems to have worked so far for about three and a half decades on all kinds of hardware under all kinds of loads.

Sometimes one has flexible choice about engineering decisions. Any choice that reaches the design goals straightforwardly is rational.

I think there's nothing I can do to make it simpler than that for anyone.

User avatar
Gn2
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon 16 Oct 2006, 05:33
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

#33 Post by Gn2 »

The OP seems to have vanished ?? : To clarify his own request :

a folder for executables >> (/bin, /sbin)
- a folder for scripts >> (system suplied default executables or user created )?
- a folder for libraries, device drivers, and codecs >> (/lib) ~ (/dev)<< (block & F/sys))
- codecs ~ (dependent on how installed - App defaults or user created >>( /etc) or (/usr sub-folders)

- a folder for configuration files and logs >> (majority of system wide Cfg: (/etc) ~ (logs /var/log)
- a folder for links to startup files >> (executables /etc, symlinked to/bin. & dynamic library dependencies)
~ Otherwise static libraries

- a folder for data >> (dependent on document source /usr/share etal + built-in man/info pages )
- a folder for temporary files (/tmp)
No special folder for mounted devices. They're auto-mounted at the top level
Only by scripted distribution idiosyncrasies - otherwise only the device storing the initiated root file system is needed, for access:
Computer administrator has permissions to /alter system wide default supplied Cfg's stored in

Code: Select all

 /etc
~ Files are fstab & mtab
Mount points are optional as are names - usually in /mnt subfolders
make it simpler

Code: Select all

 
/bin
/boot
/dev
/etc
/home
/lib
/mnt
/opt
/proc
/root
/sbin
/sys
/tmp
/usr
/var

User avatar
Dougal
Posts: 2502
Joined: Wed 19 Oct 2005, 13:06
Location: Hell more grotesque than any medieval woodcut

#34 Post by Dougal »

marksouth2000 wrote:They could have called it stuff or misc or conf if they liked. "etc" is as good as those and easy to type, and seems to have worked so far for about three and a half decades on all kinds of hardware under all kinds of loads.
"etc" is better since it's only three letters!

As for it being "rational", my record collection has a "etc" section.
As I mentioned above, it's a matter of taste: my records are not just ordered alphabetically, but broken into genre sections -- like "lib" "bin" etc in the directory structure.
This might not make sense to others but it does to me.

The thing the Gobo people deserve respect for is the fact that they didn't whine about what they consider "irrational", but actually went and did something about it. If someone wants a GoboPuppy, they're welcome to create one.
What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind

User avatar
Gn2
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon 16 Oct 2006, 05:33
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

#35 Post by Gn2 »

went and did something about it.
=Well said sir - :cool: AMEN to that !

Wonder if "gobbed" systemized structuring could do anything for one of my Out house drawers ?
> If definitely is an "etc category > Where the .....(etc etc) .... is it ?
A "catch-all" storage holder.
(Things go in - expressly so I won't lose them - only to never be seen again...... in 'there" - by mere mortal man) !

Soooo - every few Mo's it gets dunged out - then guess what is first thing needed -
(Of course - it was thrown away - so :evil: NOW I remember it....... well) !

User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

#36 Post by Flash »

But the whole point of the original post of this thread, as I understood it, is that when a beginner looks under the hood of Linux for the first time he sees a pile of spaghetti. Sure, if he sticks with it he may unravel it enough to make sense of it, but why bother? That *other* OS offers an easier way to get the job done. Most people just want to use a computer to do something. They don't want to marry the thing, and they'd rather not have to go back to school just to get it to do what they want, if they can avoid it. Isn't that what application programs are for?

As for naming directories and files with TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms,) that is a legacy of the days when memory and processing power were expensive. There is no longer any good reason not to use names that suggest their purpose, and spell them out. How popular would this forum be if John had named the categories with TLAs? :lol:

If we're really serious about wanting people to switch to Linux, the filesystem needs to be simplified, rationalized and made more intuitive, not necessarily in that order. Using full names instead of cryptic abbreviations would be a good start.

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#37 Post by Pizzasgood »

As for naming directories and files with TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms,) that is a legacy of the days when memory and processing power were expensive. There is no longer any good reason not to use names that suggest their purpose, and spell them out.
Yes there is. I can type "/etc/X11/xorg.conf" much faster than "/etcetera/Xserver/xorg_configuration_file". :lol:
But, that's just me.


The only things the Windows users had to worry about were C:\Program Files\ and whatever was on the desktop, because the installer did everything for them. Anything else they knew, they learned. What is there to suggest putting a dll in C:\windows\system\ and not some other place? Nothing. But they knew it because that's what the instructions said. Same in linux, but easier. "Oh, the library I downloaded goes in /usr/lib? Whoda thunk it?" So long as the installer works, they won't have to do anything or know anything, other than maybe confirm a destination (same as they did in Windows). If it breaks, they go learn how to fix it. Maybe it isn't in the same spot as Windows, but maybe it isn't Windows?

My college has a different layout than my high school, and the dorm isn't the same as my old room. I've yet to call in the architects.


I'm just saying, I think somebody new to linux and Windows both would have trouble with either one. Program Files is obvious, but that's about it.
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

User avatar
Gn2
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon 16 Oct 2006, 05:33
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

#38 Post by Gn2 »

OMG - Hoped all this redundancy was already dissected to :lol: grew- sum deaRth ?

Windows is FAR from intuitive - ask a relative newcomer where to find built in system repair tools or how to edit the @!!## Registry !
I am d- - n sure there are many things about Windows most users have no clue what they are named -
where even to find .... let alone use .

As for their own file systems - aside from NTFS all the rest are :cry: pure layer upon layer of MS-DOS legacy kludge !

How about System I/O - must be installed to 1st bootable drive 1st partition ??
NTloader that unceremoniously wipes 'alien' loaders !
(Linux moves/stores old MBR tables)

Same applies to the :shock: memory Mgt - It may be linear - but still has inelegant/weird paging calls.
( Please- don't even go there, some users may just know a few esoterics Re alternate platforms.)

BTW why even type long_file_names - or paths ... Use wildcards &/or :cool: Bash completion !
I contend - It's best to try coping/understanding any O/System inners-
Prior to cavalier dismissing of Linux standards -as having any percieved structural "flaws" ?

Just as in E.G. Bash's (lesser used/understood) capabilities - it is never just "easy" to assimilate all nuances -

If thought so - >SUM lessons have not been studied .

User avatar
Dougal
Posts: 2502
Joined: Wed 19 Oct 2005, 13:06
Location: Hell more grotesque than any medieval woodcut

#39 Post by Dougal »

Flash wrote:But the whole point of the original post of this thread, as I understood it, is that when a beginner looks under the hood of Linux for the first time he sees a pile of spaghetti.
The way I see it he shouldn't touch anything in any case, unless he knows what he's doing.
This kind of thing is actually a source of problems in a Windoews-like structure: people want to uninstall a program, so they just go to my-programs and delete it's directory, which is not a proper uninstall.

Besides, I don't think most Windows users know how the windows directory structure works. I never did.
What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind

amish
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun 24 Sep 2006, 23:15

#40 Post by amish »

/ == where the file system begins

/boot == where the kernel (vmlinuz) is kept

/etc == contains configuration files, including startup scripts

/bin, /usr/bin == contain most of the programs for the system
/bin == the most essential programs
/usr/bin == applications for the users of the system

/sbin, /usr/sbin == programs for system administration or "superuser"

/usr/X11 == the xwindows system
/usr/dict == dictionaries for the spelling checker
/usr/doc == documentation files in many formats
/usr/man == man pages
/usr/src == if the source is installed, it can be found here


/usr/local, /usr/local/bin == software that is installed on the machine physically in use goes here, worthy of note in a time abundant with live cd distros

/var == contains files that change as the system is running, including log files
/lib == shared libraries, often used by more than one application

/home == where users keep personal work
/root == personal folder for the superuser


/tmp == a directory for temporary files written by programs
/dev == the location of system devices, such as the modem or usb key
/proc == a virtual listing that accesses live system information
/mnt == the primary location where drives are mounted


the above is a summary of http://linuxcommand.org/lts0040.php - which
is © 2000-2006, William Shotts, Jr.

find / -depth | grep what.to.search.for
find any file in linux, using part of the name

example: find / -depth | grep isket

Post Reply