5 ms·

Coming from Windows a year or so ago, the Linux filesystem has been probably the most confusing thing about the switch (I've read about the logic behind /var an

Coming from Windows a year or so ago, the Linux filesystem has been probably the most confusing thing about the switch (I've read about the logic behind /var and /bin and /usr several times but it was not intuitive to me and didn't stick). I generally have no idea where my config files are stored and can barely find where programs keep their data. And then I download some software that doesn't install itself and I have to figure out where to put it... The fact that this is all only sorta-kinda standardized between distributions, and that you often have separate config files for the system, for the user, and for the session doesn't help either. It's not clear that GoboLinux entirely solves this issue but at first glance it looks like it's trying and the /Programs organization is pretty intuitive. What's not appealing at all though is using a distro that doesn't have custom packages for all the software I'm using (aka is not Ubuntu or RedHat based). I'm not at all comfortable building from source--when I've tried it I've rarely been successful--and the prospect of further winnowing down my choices (from not just Linux-compatible software to software that however many GoboLinux users have uploaded to their Recipes directory) is, well, pretty intimidating.

Juliate 9y ago
Switching operating systems and tools is always a messy experience. Coming from Linux and macOS to Windows this year, the Windows filesystem has been... well, one of the very confusing things. Although I understand the Linux fs is messy (and macOS improves a bit on that), I'm used to it and it makes sense. OT, the only good bit I found is the Outlook directory, mail, calendar, Office experience (but that will not make me stick to Windows either).
thegeomaster 9y ago
On your last point about installing software: I've used Ubuntu and Fedora, and finally settled on Arch ~4 years ago. Interestingly, although Arch has a reputation of being a "DIY" distribution (in the sense that it targets power users), I've had way more trouble installing software on Ubuntu and Fedora than on Arch. Arch has what is called the Arch User Repository (AUR). It's a repository of recipes for building all kinds of software, and it's submitted and maintained by the users, not maintainers of the distro itself. Whenever there's a package missing in the official repositories, I almost always find it in the AUR. AUR has no binary builds---instead, you download files and scripts needed to build the software from source. You then run the makepkg utility, and you get a package you can install. (There are also helper programs which automate this whole process for you.) The result is that the package manager tracks the files properly, and you can keep track of which version you have, can remove the software cleanly, and update it whenever you like. Today, when I'm at a Ubuntu box, it's a pain in the ass to install some less-known software. I can download the sources and then try to build, and I usually succeed, but not before I've figured out the right flags, prefixes, build-time and run-time dependencies, etc. I also get questions pertaining to this from my friends that have recently switched to Linux, and I don't really have a solution to offer. Yes, there are PPAs, but more often than not, PPAs are outdated and are binary-only, meaning you can't really review how the binary packages came about. AUR really solves the problem nicely. I'd like to see such a concept in another, more beginner-friendly distribution, that I can then recommend to people around me who are considering making the switch.
- type0 9y ago
  > AUR really solves the problem nicely. I'd like to see such a concept in another, more beginner-friendly distribution, that I can then recommend to people around me who are considering making the switch. Yeah, I wish there were AUR for Ubuntu
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  How does Arch's AUR compare to Gentoo's portage?
- greggyb 9y ago
  Manjaro or another Arch-based distro might be the answer there?
- cr0sh 9y ago
  I tried arch a couple of years ago (in a VM), and while I liked it and the reasoning behind it, I had certain misgivings that led me away from it being considered for any future use. The main one being that whole AUR thing: What happens if there isn't a recipe in there? For example - you want to install something which only has a binary, no source, and can't be (legally) redistributed; what then? Well - to "install" the software, you basically have to go thru all of the steps to build your own recipe, noting down what you do manually, and eventually getting to the point where you have a script (or whatever) to install the software. Then, you undo all of your manual work, and run your arch package to do the real install. Tada - you now have a working package for that piece of software, and have spent potentially hours to get to that point. As a bonus, you can't redistribute that recipe, because it is based around a binary blob that was purchased and you don't have the rights to redistribute it. At least, that's how I interpreted it. I honestly don't recall what piece of software I wanted to use, but I think it may have been EagleCAD - which has a Linux port, but is binary only. I think it only has RPM and DEB packages, so to get it on arch, you'd have to build your own package. It wasn't so much the fact that you had to do this, just that it wasn't an easy and straightforward process (from what I recall), and if you only need to do it once or twice, it would be pretty arduous. Maybe by now (haven't looked) they have some kind of package conversion tool, which would be a great addition.
trashbat 9y ago
Just in case you weren't aware, on most distros you can enter "man hier" to get a full description of the filesystem hierarchy.
- jesse_m 9y ago
  wow the more you know That is an incredible little tidbit. I love finding out the answer to most of my questions is under my nose in the docs baked right in
- mxuribe 9y ago
  How have i never heard of this!?! Thank you so much for this tidbit; very handy!!!
- the_why_of_y 9y ago
  The content of hier(7) looks a bit out of date, e.g. it's missing "/run" but still documents the whole archaic "/usr/X11R6" hierarchy that went away together with imake a decade ago. file-hierarchy(7) appears to be a more modern alternative. (Cue complaints from users of a real UNIX about how GNU/Linux is such a cobbled together poorly documented hodgepodge...)
arghwhat 9y ago
/bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, /opt... is a mess on unices. There is no profound idea behind it. Someone needed a folder that was not interfered with, then someone started interfering so a new folder was born, and so forth. However, they are mostly just prioritized copies of eachother. / comes first, then /usr, then /usr/local, then /opt. The structures in them are identical. On Windows, however, the only organized region would be that applications get a folder, but there's multiple potential locations (Program Files, Program Files (x86)), and they might also dump a bunch of things in various user-local folders, as well as the giant landfill that is C:\Windows. It lacks structure, to the point where there is even clones of UNIX structures in there (C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts?!?).
- h1d 9y ago
  First you got /bin on boot, enough to mount an external drive to mount /usr and you're set. That's what I heard was the case back then. These days it's non sensical and I heard about an effort to symlink either of it to the other and consolidate the binaries. /opt is alright. It's where you dump your tar ball and compile your custom stuff and place it under not to mix stuff up with package managed software. Not sure how people differentiate against /usr/local though.
  - toyg 9y ago
    /usr/local vs /opt, afaik, is mostly a case of 3rd-party commercial software ending up under /opt, whereas your more personal scripts and hacks are in /usr/local. I'm not particularly bothered about /bin vs /usr/bin, these days everything is in /usr/bin -- unless you are in an embedded scenario, and at that point everything is custom anyway. The one location that doesn't make sense is /usr/sbin, which is hopefully being phased out. Tbh the only thing I really miss is having ~/bin in PATH by default (and ~/lib, ~/share etc similarly picked up where necessary), since installing software in personal userspace is still pretty common in real multiuser environments; standardizing that would help, imho.
    - gh02t 9y ago
      > Tbh the only thing I really miss is having ~/bin in PATH by default (and ~/lib, ~/share etc similarly picked up where necessary), since installing software in personal userspace is still pretty common in real multiuser environments; standardizing that would help, imho. Not sure that will become standardized, it's a big security risk. Usually you want ~/bin to be at the front of your PATH so it takes priority, but the downside is... well that it takes priority. It's easy for someone to subvert the stuff in PATH because they only need your permissions.
lunchables 9y ago
(I work mostly with rpm based distros so ..) > I generally have no idea where my config files are stored rpm -qc <package_name> > and can barely find where programs keep their data rpm -ql <package_name> >And then I download some software that doesn't install itself and I have to figure out where to put it... Not sure if you mean source to be compiled or a package? >The fact that this is all only sorta-kinda standardized between distributions Distributions exist because people have their own opinions on the best way to do things. Pick one you like and learn it. If your complaint is that this isn't all obvious then I wholeheartedly agree with you. But this is genuinely a simple case of you not RTFM.
- ivm 9y ago
  I don't want to RTFM to understand a file arrangement. It must be intuitive, like what I see in Finder in macOS. UX design failures like this is the main reason why Linux can't get more than 3% on desktop.
  - cr0sh 9y ago
    Personally, I'm glad that "Linux on the Desktop" has such a low figure (whatever it really is, but 3% sounds reasonable). It would be like when AOL allowed their users on the internet. With viruses and other crap too.
- foo101 9y ago
  So your point is that I need to RTFM to know something that should be intuitive? That kind of corroborates the OP's point.

Juliate 9y ago

Switching operating systems and tools is always a messy experience. Coming from Linux and macOS to Windows this year, the Windows filesystem has been... well, one of the very confusing things. Although I understand the Linux fs is messy (and macOS improves a bit on that), I'm used to it and it makes sense. OT, the only good bit I found is the Outlook directory, mail, calendar, Office experience (but that will not make me stick to Windows either).

thegeomaster 9y ago

On your last point about installing software: I've used Ubuntu and Fedora, and finally settled on Arch ~4 years ago. Interestingly, although Arch has a reputation of being a "DIY" distribution (in the sense that it targets power users), I've had way more trouble installing software on Ubuntu and Fedora than on Arch. Arch has what is called the Arch User Repository (AUR). It's a repository of recipes for building all kinds of software, and it's submitted and maintained by the users, not maintainers of the distro itself. Whenever there's a package missing in the official repositories, I almost always find it in the AUR. AUR has no binary builds---instead, you download files and scripts needed to build the software from source. You then run the makepkg utility, and you get a package you can install. (There are also helper programs which automate this whole process for you.) The result is that the package manager tracks the files properly, and you can keep track of which version you have, can remove the software cleanly, and update it whenever you like. Today, when I'm at a Ubuntu box, it's a pain in the ass to install some less-known software. I can download the sources and then try to build, and I usually succeed, but not before I've figured out the right flags, prefixes, build-time and run-time dependencies, etc. I also get questions pertaining to this from my friends that have recently switched to Linux, and I don't really have a solution to offer. Yes, there are PPAs, but more often than not, PPAs are outdated and are binary-only, meaning you can't really review how the binary packages came about. AUR really solves the problem nicely. I'd like to see such a concept in another, more beginner-friendly distribution, that I can then recommend to people around me who are considering making the switch.

type0 9y ago
> AUR really solves the problem nicely. I'd like to see such a concept in another, more beginner-friendly distribution, that I can then recommend to people around me who are considering making the switch. Yeah, I wish there were AUR for Ubuntu
pmoriarty 9y ago
How does Arch's AUR compare to Gentoo's portage?
greggyb 9y ago
Manjaro or another Arch-based distro might be the answer there?
cr0sh 9y ago
I tried arch a couple of years ago (in a VM), and while I liked it and the reasoning behind it, I had certain misgivings that led me away from it being considered for any future use. The main one being that whole AUR thing: What happens if there isn't a recipe in there? For example - you want to install something which only has a binary, no source, and can't be (legally) redistributed; what then? Well - to "install" the software, you basically have to go thru all of the steps to build your own recipe, noting down what you do manually, and eventually getting to the point where you have a script (or whatever) to install the software. Then, you undo all of your manual work, and run your arch package to do the real install. Tada - you now have a working package for that piece of software, and have spent potentially hours to get to that point. As a bonus, you can't redistribute that recipe, because it is based around a binary blob that was purchased and you don't have the rights to redistribute it. At least, that's how I interpreted it. I honestly don't recall what piece of software I wanted to use, but I think it may have been EagleCAD - which has a Linux port, but is binary only. I think it only has RPM and DEB packages, so to get it on arch, you'd have to build your own package. It wasn't so much the fact that you had to do this, just that it wasn't an easy and straightforward process (from what I recall), and if you only need to do it once or twice, it would be pretty arduous. Maybe by now (haven't looked) they have some kind of package conversion tool, which would be a great addition.

trashbat 9y ago

Just in case you weren't aware, on most distros you can enter "man hier" to get a full description of the filesystem hierarchy.

jesse_m 9y ago
wow the more you know That is an incredible little tidbit. I love finding out the answer to most of my questions is under my nose in the docs baked right in
mxuribe 9y ago
How have i never heard of this!?! Thank you so much for this tidbit; very handy!!!
the_why_of_y 9y ago
The content of hier(7) looks a bit out of date, e.g. it's missing "/run" but still documents the whole archaic "/usr/X11R6" hierarchy that went away together with imake a decade ago. file-hierarchy(7) appears to be a more modern alternative. (Cue complaints from users of a real UNIX about how GNU/Linux is such a cobbled together poorly documented hodgepodge...)

arghwhat 9y ago

/bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, /opt... is a mess on unices. There is no profound idea behind it. Someone needed a folder that was not interfered with, then someone started interfering so a new folder was born, and so forth. However, they are mostly just prioritized copies of eachother. / comes first, then /usr, then /usr/local, then /opt. The structures in them are identical. On Windows, however, the only organized region would be that applications get a folder, but there's multiple potential locations (Program Files, Program Files (x86)), and they might also dump a bunch of things in various user-local folders, as well as the giant landfill that is C:\Windows. It lacks structure, to the point where there is even clones of UNIX structures in there (C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts?!?).

h1d 9y ago
First you got /bin on boot, enough to mount an external drive to mount /usr and you're set. That's what I heard was the case back then. These days it's non sensical and I heard about an effort to symlink either of it to the other and consolidate the binaries. /opt is alright. It's where you dump your tar ball and compile your custom stuff and place it under not to mix stuff up with package managed software. Not sure how people differentiate against /usr/local though.
- toyg 9y ago
  /usr/local vs /opt, afaik, is mostly a case of 3rd-party commercial software ending up under /opt, whereas your more personal scripts and hacks are in /usr/local. I'm not particularly bothered about /bin vs /usr/bin, these days everything is in /usr/bin -- unless you are in an embedded scenario, and at that point everything is custom anyway. The one location that doesn't make sense is /usr/sbin, which is hopefully being phased out. Tbh the only thing I really miss is having ~/bin in PATH by default (and ~/lib, ~/share etc similarly picked up where necessary), since installing software in personal userspace is still pretty common in real multiuser environments; standardizing that would help, imho.
  - gh02t 9y ago
    > Tbh the only thing I really miss is having ~/bin in PATH by default (and ~/lib, ~/share etc similarly picked up where necessary), since installing software in personal userspace is still pretty common in real multiuser environments; standardizing that would help, imho. Not sure that will become standardized, it's a big security risk. Usually you want ~/bin to be at the front of your PATH so it takes priority, but the downside is... well that it takes priority. It's easy for someone to subvert the stuff in PATH because they only need your permissions.

lunchables 9y ago

(I work mostly with rpm based distros so ..) > I generally have no idea where my config files are stored rpm -qc <package_name> > and can barely find where programs keep their data rpm -ql <package_name> >And then I download some software that doesn't install itself and I have to figure out where to put it... Not sure if you mean source to be compiled or a package? >The fact that this is all only sorta-kinda standardized between distributions Distributions exist because people have their own opinions on the best way to do things. Pick one you like and learn it. If your complaint is that this isn't all obvious then I wholeheartedly agree with you. But this is genuinely a simple case of you not RTFM.

ivm 9y ago
I don't want to RTFM to understand a file arrangement. It must be intuitive, like what I see in Finder in macOS. UX design failures like this is the main reason why Linux can't get more than 3% on desktop.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  Personally, I'm glad that "Linux on the Desktop" has such a low figure (whatever it really is, but 3% sounds reasonable). It would be like when AOL allowed their users on the internet. With viruses and other crap too.
foo101 9y ago
So your point is that I need to RTFM to know something that should be intuitive? That kind of corroborates the OP's point.