Do you like the filesystem hierarchy?

[Rhox]

This is an attempt to get the statistics requested here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=411979.

[Rhox]

Would someone sticky this for a day or so?

[Mateo]

don't like it.

[diskotek]

edit edit edit: i got it know. it's ok for me, but only i confused when i tried to find an application to open via browser. i think it's just because i recently switched to linux. but i fthey change it, it would becoe a mess for linux world.

[Polygon]

ive been using linux for a year and i still dont really understand it, i mean when a program gets installed there are like 10 different places where the program files can end up, and even then the program files for any one program are scattered across the filesystem

but it works, and there is some method behind the madness as its survived this far, and it seems to work. Not to mention that if we changed it that would create more problems then i think would fix

if we were to chnage anything, you could just make symlinks to the proper folders, like mac os X does.

[MRiGnS]

I do like them. You'll get used to use them properly and will learn to know where everything is.

I've been using Linux for 10 years though.

[karellen]

I have nothing against it...it's a breeze of fresh air when you come from windows land

[jfinkels]

I consider it a lot easier to understand what's going on here than it is in Windows. Regardless, it still seems logical to me. But then again, I'm a very understanding person.

[Outrunner]

Sure I like it. I've used GNU/Linux distros for a few months now, and I'm comfortable with the fs hierarchy.

[Balazs_noob]

I like it, no problem with it :))

it was strange at first ....
but now i am very comfortable with it.
i use linux now about 2 weeks and
very happy with it :D

[jrusso2]

People who dislike the Linux filesystem because it puts things in more then one place don't seem to mind the windows registry which puts cryptic things all over and usually leaves residue of uninstalled and failed applications all over. Also windows does not just install to Program Files, its also can install to windows/system and system32, temp and other places.

[Rui Pais]

i confess i find the problem that people have with unix filesystem hierarchy like a little weird...

i aways disliked the windows one with the terrible habit of using name with spaces on it (that installers sometimes confused by directory separators...:roll: ) and the childish Mythis, Mythat... most of the time virtual or special folders... (buahhrgh!)

Well i suppose that at least here, in Linux, people who don't like it in way can always make endless appeals to change it, no matter how many people would point the useless of the case :lol:

On the argument of newbies get confused... new users didn't need to go there... a nice main term like file managers "hide" it beyond a "Home Folder" and "File System" seems more then enough.
(btw never saw a newbie complain about that... they usually have other problems ;))

[mech7]

I pretty much hate it.. especially how it seems to install programs in different directories it is very confusing. Also the semantics are pretty terribe, 'bin' ? is that where i throw away my files?

[mech7]

People who dislike the Linux filesystem because it puts things in more then one place don't seem to mind the windows registry which puts cryptic things all over and usually leaves residue of uninstalled and failed applications all over. Also windows does not just install to Program Files, its also can install to windows/system and system32, temp and other places.

So that makes it allright for linux to do it? :confused:

[Mathiasdm]

Bloody hell, I misunderstood the poll. I thought the question was: "Would you like the hierarchy to be changed."
So I said: "Don't like it."

But I like the current hierarchy!

[jariku]

I don't really care. I still get lost in the file system but I usually have some idea where that file I'm looking for is.

I have similar problems with Windows and Mac OS, but that's what the search tools are for.

[steven8]

slocate <filename> will get a s***load of information. You'll find everything.

Once you get the hang of it, you find there is a great bit of sense behind they unix file system. Each program is made of of 'these types of files', each of 'these types of files' are put in 'those types of folders'. Looking for 'this type of file'? Go to 'that type of folder'.

Voila! There it is.

[mech7]

slocate <filename> will get a s***load of information. You'll find everything.

Once you get the hang of it, you find there is a great bit of sense behind they unix file system. Each program is made of of 'these types of files', each of 'these types of files' are put in 'those types of folders'. Looking for 'this type of file'? Go to 'that type of folder'.

Voila! There it is.

What kind of files are opt.. they sound a bit like option why the heck does my webserver get stored there :confused:

[steven8]

Add-On Application Software Packages:

http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#OPTADDONAPPLICATIONSOFTWAREPACKAGES

This link goes to a site that explains the whole hierarchy in great detail.

sorry, that link not so good to get to the main page. here: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html

[justinlb]

I used to laugh at people who voted for the wrong option in polls.........

Now I feel so dumb, I meant "I like it" but I did "I don't like" :(

[urukrama]

For those of you who don't understand the Ubuntu's file system, have a look at this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=258611). Quite instructive.

[Rui Pais]

I pretty much hate it.. especially how it seems to install programs in different directories it is very confusing. Also the semantics are pretty terribe, 'bin' ? is that where i throw away my files?


So that makes it allright for linux to do it? :confused:

No. But thats the nature of things in any OS.
A "program", unless it is a basic condole app, is made of binaries (i doubt that all bins to you are trash...), libraries and configs. On any OSs.
If any app would save it's configs on is owns folder would make it more harder to find. And when it cames to libs that would even be contradictory since the purpose of apps using libs is for sharing and save development time. If any gtk app would save it's own version of gtk libs, same for qt, system, hardware, etc... on it's own folder it would be an endless waste of space.

Of course directorys could have more explicit names , /configs instead of /etc, /binaries instead of /bin (Program Files have an empty space that can be problematic and sounds more of data files then executables...) and so on...
But besides the troube of change all that, what would be the purpose? Users shouldn't be changing nothing or do what ever there.

Unless someone develop apps and found uncomfortable with that (what i never saw) i don't understand why users (experienced or not) need so much understandable files names for the system...

[bruce89]

Unless you advocate getting rid of the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard which every unix-like OS adheres to (even MacOS X), on the pretext of it being "not enough like Windows" I don't see any problem.

[Happy_Man]

Much better than Windows, though not without its share of issues. In Windows, there is C:, D: F: whatever, and you have to remember where everything is. In Linux, all you have to do is (for a separate hard drive) go into /media, (for program settings) /home/.program, etc.
Much easier to navigate than C:/Documents and Settings/<your username under Windows>(show hidden files)/Application Data/Program, hm?

[gashcr]

I like it because it is REAL hierarchy

[argie]

I didn't mind it when I first got into linux. Now I'm so used to it, I don't want to change and rewire my mind to remember anything else. This is just fine. I like it, just inertia though.

[MrHorus]

Also the semantics are pretty terribe, 'bin' ? is that where i throw away my files?

Well no, it's where you find BINaries, just like sbin is where you find System Binaries, var is where you find VARiable files (like logs), proc is where you find information on PROCesses (it's a pseudo-filesystem) and lib is where you find LIBraries, just like opt is where you originally found OPTional packages like a JRE or source tarballs.

I don't know about you but those semantics make perfect sense to me :)

[aysiu]

I wonder if the "filesystem hierarchy of Ubuntu sucks" people are the same as the "there Linux distros should all unite and create one 'best' distro" people.

[a12ctic]

Are you guys kidding me? The filesystem hierachy is amazing! Everything is so organized. If I need configuration files just look in etc, if you need to find an excutable just look in bin! Trust me, its a lot easier than scattering everything at random through a few directories like another popular OS.

[Polygon]

thanks for those links, ill look through them

i usually find however that most programs are installed somewhere under /usr , but where exactly seems to be random. a lot of them seem to go under /usr/share, but a few are under /usr/etc and even a few under /usr/local/share..... but i guess there must be some sane reason for why its done that way

[Rui Pais]

I wonder if the "filesystem hierarchy of Ubuntu sucks" people are the same as the "there Linux distros should all unite and create one 'best' distro" people.

Funny. I made a similar question on "Linux logo sucks and will kill our presence on the enterprises".

Those king of threads seems to propagate like mushrooms lately...

[Rui Pais]

i usually find however that most programs are installed somewhere under /usr , but where exactly seems to be random. a lot of them seem to go under /usr/share, but a few are under /usr/etc and even a few under /usr/local/share..... but i guess there must be some sane reason for why its done that way

program binaries (starters of apps) are saved under /usr/bin/ (not random).
/usr/share don't have binaries, just shared stuff (share ... shared, semantics ;)) like pics, themes, etc.
There is no /usr/etc.

/usr/local are for stuff compiled/installed manually (not from distro package management, and so don't get mixed...) You can change that directory at ./configure step anyway, to get the usual /usr/.

/opt has more or less the same purpose of /usr/local but the later became more usual lately, with /opt beeing use for 3rd partys, close sources or duplicated versions (extra firefox/swiftfox, e.g.)

[Rhox]

I see I made the poll poorly. I'll repost it. before I do how should I make it? Something like this: I want it changed, I want it to stay the way it is, I don't care if it's changed, I don't care if its changed as long as I can choose which hierarchy I see.