3 ms·

I have been waiting to try that one for a long time. I always found it annoying that the linux filesystem is not self-explanatory. I have been given unsatisfact

I have been waiting to try that one for a long time. I always found it annoying that the linux filesystem is not self-explanatory. I have been given unsatisfactory explanations about it so many times but could never understand the rationale between the /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/ etc. Turns out it is just historical cruft : (oops can't find the link) I am so glad I switched to Linux but I really miss Window's 'Program files' directory.

cycomanic 6y ago
I find the complains funny, for one you should really never need to care where certain programs are installed (and I don't remember the last time I had to). Moreover you can always run which executable and it tells you the location of the executable. It's also funny how Windows is supposedly better, there is at least program files and program files (x86) some programs still just install into C: (I think python used to do that), and there are the different windows folders. Let's not forget the myriad of places where programs drop data. And because Windows has no proper package management, you actually need to where things are.
- cassepipe 6y ago
  > I find the complains funny, for one you should really never need to care where certain programs are installed Well Linux is not a walled garden with a company that takes care of everything behind the scenes so it should be easy for a beginner to wrap its head around a system and understand at least its logic. It's good not to have to rely on specialists for simple things.
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    I really don't understand what you mean. A beginner should be able to sit in front of the linux machine and just understand everything without needing to do any background reading? And to what level does that apply? Should the user understand everything? Also why is a directory system of /Firefox /Chrome /Gimp ... easier? Where do libraries sit in this system (is that easy to understand?)? How do I determine if I build something what library I'm going to use ... I think the perception of a certain way being easier is largely based on what one is used to. I certainly am always lost when I sit in front of a windows machine. Just the other day I was trying to get ctypes to find a library and ended up just ending lots of things to LIB or PATH (I'm sure there are better way to do things). BTW I was asked by a windows user for help. This is not a dig at windows, just my argument that filesystem layouts are largely conventions (even though often for good reasons) and yes one has to invest some time to understand them. Edit: For someone who wants to understand how Linux works and many things work together I highly recommend giving linux from scratch a try. Most people fall into the trap of just copy pasting the commands (I was one of them as well), so you probably want to build a couple of times, and try to update your system. Hopefully you run into a couple of roadblocks, which force you to thing a bit more about what you are doing and is were the learning experience comes from IMO.
    - Qwertious 6y ago
      Writing a basic python script: #!/bin/python print("hello world!") Oh wait, /bin might not exist. It's in /usr/bin. Wait, what even is /bin? No, it's not the recycling bin - see, it's short for binary. No, there isn't a separate directory for plaintext scripts, why do you ask? Well surely it's a directory for user-specific programs then, right? Nope, it's read-only stuff. Well, why not symlink it to /ro? Well, because symlinking and transitioning are too much effort, and because that's very english-language-centric of you, what about other languages where /usr and /to are random gibberish? Well, how's other-language support then? For instance, is it possible to reliably use Korean characters in your username without a lot of programs breaking? Nah, see you're better off just writing your Korean name in english characters. Much more reliable that way. But wait a sec, let's go back to that symlinking thing: if symlinking and migrating is too much effort, then how did we ever switch from /bin to /usr/bin? Well duh, we just symlinked /bin to /usr/bin. Great, can we do that for /usr and /ro? Nope. ***** Can we please just admit that Linux's ease of use is burdened by tons of historical baggage? Then we'll have to either say "we just don't care that much", or actually fix it.
      - cycomanic 6y ago
        OK I bite in which operating system would I just know where Python is installed? Moreover, most of the things you are saying are wrong. 1. Any linux distribution who follows the FHS (pretty much all the big ones) has a /bin directory. It doesn't contain the python usually though. 2. bin is also not necessarily read-only (I'm not sure where it is). Maybe you should have a look at the FHS? 3. not sure what you mean by symlinking /usr and /ro you can certainly symlink to /usr to /ro, but not sure what you are trying to achieve 4. UTF-8 usernames are certainly possible on Linux distributions that have full UTF-8 support (which I imagine are again most). Your proposal of just fixing the "historical baggage" for some claimed ease of use (I still claim that directory naming is really at the bottom of the list for changes to improve ease of use. And linux has changes that are required to improve ease of use), would actually break lots of peoples work flow for questionable gain. Moreover, if directory naming is important to someone, they can use Gobolinux, so it's not like you have to follow the old "historical baggage".
    - 6y ago

cycomanic 6y ago

I find the complains funny, for one you should really never need to care where certain programs are installed (and I don't remember the last time I had to). Moreover you can always run which executable and it tells you the location of the executable. It's also funny how Windows is supposedly better, there is at least program files and program files (x86) some programs still just install into C: (I think python used to do that), and there are the different windows folders. Let's not forget the myriad of places where programs drop data. And because Windows has no proper package management, you actually need to where things are.

cassepipe 6y ago
> I find the complains funny, for one you should really never need to care where certain programs are installed Well Linux is not a walled garden with a company that takes care of everything behind the scenes so it should be easy for a beginner to wrap its head around a system and understand at least its logic. It's good not to have to rely on specialists for simple things.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  I really don't understand what you mean. A beginner should be able to sit in front of the linux machine and just understand everything without needing to do any background reading? And to what level does that apply? Should the user understand everything? Also why is a directory system of /Firefox /Chrome /Gimp ... easier? Where do libraries sit in this system (is that easy to understand?)? How do I determine if I build something what library I'm going to use ... I think the perception of a certain way being easier is largely based on what one is used to. I certainly am always lost when I sit in front of a windows machine. Just the other day I was trying to get ctypes to find a library and ended up just ending lots of things to LIB or PATH (I'm sure there are better way to do things). BTW I was asked by a windows user for help. This is not a dig at windows, just my argument that filesystem layouts are largely conventions (even though often for good reasons) and yes one has to invest some time to understand them. Edit: For someone who wants to understand how Linux works and many things work together I highly recommend giving linux from scratch a try. Most people fall into the trap of just copy pasting the commands (I was one of them as well), so you probably want to build a couple of times, and try to update your system. Hopefully you run into a couple of roadblocks, which force you to thing a bit more about what you are doing and is were the learning experience comes from IMO.
  - Qwertious 6y ago
    Writing a basic python script: #!/bin/python print("hello world!") Oh wait, /bin might not exist. It's in /usr/bin. Wait, what even is /bin? No, it's not the recycling bin - see, it's short for binary. No, there isn't a separate directory for plaintext scripts, why do you ask? Well surely it's a directory for user-specific programs then, right? Nope, it's read-only stuff. Well, why not symlink it to /ro? Well, because symlinking and transitioning are too much effort, and because that's very english-language-centric of you, what about other languages where /usr and /to are random gibberish? Well, how's other-language support then? For instance, is it possible to reliably use Korean characters in your username without a lot of programs breaking? Nah, see you're better off just writing your Korean name in english characters. Much more reliable that way. But wait a sec, let's go back to that symlinking thing: if symlinking and migrating is too much effort, then how did we ever switch from /bin to /usr/bin? Well duh, we just symlinked /bin to /usr/bin. Great, can we do that for /usr and /ro? Nope. ***** Can we please just admit that Linux's ease of use is burdened by tons of historical baggage? Then we'll have to either say "we just don't care that much", or actually fix it.
    - cycomanic 6y ago
      OK I bite in which operating system would I just know where Python is installed? Moreover, most of the things you are saying are wrong. 1. Any linux distribution who follows the FHS (pretty much all the big ones) has a /bin directory. It doesn't contain the python usually though. 2. bin is also not necessarily read-only (I'm not sure where it is). Maybe you should have a look at the FHS? 3. not sure what you mean by symlinking /usr and /ro you can certainly symlink to /usr to /ro, but not sure what you are trying to achieve 4. UTF-8 usernames are certainly possible on Linux distributions that have full UTF-8 support (which I imagine are again most). Your proposal of just fixing the "historical baggage" for some claimed ease of use (I still claim that directory naming is really at the bottom of the list for changes to improve ease of use. And linux has changes that are required to improve ease of use), would actually break lots of peoples work flow for questionable gain. Moreover, if directory naming is important to someone, they can use Gobolinux, so it's not like you have to follow the old "historical baggage".
  - 6y ago