4 ms·

> /usr/local/bin is an implementation detail from an OS nobody has used for decades Linux, MacOS, the BSDs... They're very much used today, not just decades ag

> /usr/local/bin is an implementation detail from an OS nobody has used for decades Linux, MacOS, the BSDs... They're very much used today, not just decades ago. the /bin, /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin are very simple to understand after around 10 minutes of looking at the contents of / (root). */bin/ has binaries, */lib/ has libraries, */include/ has headers. Its as simple as it gets, I dont see a way you could make a "better" system, other than maybe renaming "bin" to "binaries" for the 5 people on the planet with an irrational fear of common abbreviations.

user-the-name 6y ago
And what does "usr" mean?
- RealStickman_ 6y ago
  User System Resources
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    That is not what it meant when it was created. Apparently some people have retroactively tried to change it mean that, but, that is just a complete nonsense phrase.
    - artimaeis 6y ago
      Right, as far as I understand it originally was just short for "user". It's where home directories of users were placed. Now that it's been relegated to storing user-usable programs & data it makes sense to me that it's separate from say /Users, but I suppose it could be aliased to something like /UserProgramsAndData for verboseness and clarity to newer users. But regardless, "User System Resources" is a fairly useful phrase, it's there to separate their system resources (programs & data) from their personal resources (which should be in their user directory). But, a system _does_ have users. Those users _do_ have programs. There's a hierarchical relationship. I've been following along with your comments in this thread and I just don't follow what you're getting at here.
      - user-the-name 6y ago
        If you designed this from scratch, is that the name you would naturally pick?
        flippinburgers 6y ago
        If the naming of the path is where you are hanging the crux of your argument about how "bad" things are, then you are not making a terribly convincing argument.
        user-the-name 6y ago
        It is not. It is just one example out of a million of how things are weird and non-obvious for pointless reasons.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
And what is /usr/lib and /usb/bin then? Sure, they had meaning historically but today they're often just symlinks because we don't really need the distinction. > Its as simple as it gets, I dont see a way you could make a "better" system I do, we could stop separating binaries from the associated other files they require in order to work. That is an artifact of how UNIX was originally implemented that is irrelevant today. Case in point: the existence of containers, flatpak, AppImage, and other such things that do exactly that! Not to mention all the operating systems, like Windows and Mac, that always worked that way.

user-the-name 6y ago

And what does "usr" mean?

RealStickman_ 6y ago
User System Resources
- user-the-name 6y ago
  That is not what it meant when it was created. Apparently some people have retroactively tried to change it mean that, but, that is just a complete nonsense phrase.
  - artimaeis 6y ago
    Right, as far as I understand it originally was just short for "user". It's where home directories of users were placed. Now that it's been relegated to storing user-usable programs & data it makes sense to me that it's separate from say /Users, but I suppose it could be aliased to something like /UserProgramsAndData for verboseness and clarity to newer users. But regardless, "User System Resources" is a fairly useful phrase, it's there to separate their system resources (programs & data) from their personal resources (which should be in their user directory). But, a system _does_ have users. Those users _do_ have programs. There's a hierarchical relationship. I've been following along with your comments in this thread and I just don't follow what you're getting at here.
    - user-the-name 6y ago
      If you designed this from scratch, is that the name you would naturally pick?
      - flippinburgers 6y ago
        If the naming of the path is where you are hanging the crux of your argument about how "bad" things are, then you are not making a terribly convincing argument.
        user-the-name 6y ago
        It is not. It is just one example out of a million of how things are weird and non-obvious for pointless reasons.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

And what is /usr/lib and /usb/bin then? Sure, they had meaning historically but today they're often just symlinks because we don't really need the distinction. > Its as simple as it gets, I dont see a way you could make a "better" system I do, we could stop separating binaries from the associated other files they require in order to work. That is an artifact of how UNIX was originally implemented that is irrelevant today. Case in point: the existence of containers, flatpak, AppImage, and other such things that do exactly that! Not to mention all the operating systems, like Windows and Mac, that always worked that way.