The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:00:59 +0000
<1429256.DBdUBT73up@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Why is the linux file hierarchy better?
,----[ Quote ]
| There are many articles around the web about the differences between
| the windows file hierarchy and the linux one. One thing they don't say
| is which one is better and why. My aim in this article is to show why
| the linux file hierarchy is a better model.
`----
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/linux/locutus/archives/why-is-the-linux-file-hierarchy-better-12916
http://tinyurl.com/ylm2ek
Define "better". I'd say it's certainly more logical but
it's also mired in tradition as well -- why "/bin" and
"/usr/bin" instead of "C:\Program Files\Executables And
Scripts" or some such?
Or perhaps /usr/softwarename/bin, where softwarename is the name of the
software that is installed. I find that /bin and /usr/bin are far too
overpopulated in Linux. On FreeBSD, only the base system is in /usr/bin
and /bin, which works. I never did like the way the LHS spec'd things,
for every package that could potentially constitute a base system to go
into /usr/bin, and there were too many. I dislike seeing 20,000 items
in /usr/bin. But if you go the /usr/softwarename/bin route, the path
will need added for each software package.
My personal solution will involve creating classes of software, and
putting them in /usr/local/audio/bin, /usr/local/net/bin,
/usr/local/editors/bin, etc. Or, one could drop the local and simply go
with /usr/audio/bin, /usr/net/bin, etc.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
