4 ms·
and the user doesn't touch /usr. So it's not hilarious statements like this make it hard to understand the reason? I almost cannot tell whether your whole post
by stinos 3y ago
and the user doesn't touch /usr.
So it's not hilarious statements like this make it hard to understand the reason? I almost cannot tell whether your whole post is sarcasm, or just showcasing irony.
- bayindirh 3y agoYes, "The user (syadmin) doesn't touch /usr, except /usr/local", where compiled in applications reside with full path so /usr/local/{bin,sbin,share,...}. If you're deploying an especially big application, you may also prefer /opt/$APPNAME/{bin,etc,usr,...} (A full filesystem tree, basically). We manage a fleet of systems at work, and I don't remember editing or touching a file under /usr, unless the period I was developing .deb or .rpm packages to deploy on said fleet. There are many written and unwritten rules in Linux world, and sometimes people disregard or ignore these rules so blatantly, so I can't understand whether the post I'm replying to is a sarcasm or irony.
- hedora 3y agoThe rules are very much written down. For instance, here are the rules for /opt: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/4/html/reference_guide/s1-filesystem-fhs#s3-filesystem-opt https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterp... There's also a section for /usr.
- teddyh 3y agoI’d start here: • Filesystem Hierarchy Standard <https://www.pathname.com/fhs/ https://www.pathname.com/fhs/> • For Debian (and derivatives): <https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#file-system-hierarchy https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#fil...>
- teddyh 3y agoAnd, of course, hier(7): <https://manpages.debian.org/stable/manpages/hier.7.en.html https://manpages.debian.org/stable/manpages/hier.7.en.html>
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- marcosdumay 3y agoYou mean that the top-level Linux directory are hilariously badly named? If so, I don't think anybody will disagree. But if you meant that's a large problem, then well, no it isn't. There are 7 of those badly named ones. It's a matter of reading half a page of text to see what they do, and after 2 or 3 times you read it as reference, you have them memorized. If would be nice to solve the issue, but it isn't anybody's priority.
- eviks 3y agoOr you'll never memorize them because those 2 or 3 times are many months apart since you're just a user that rarely tweaks those configs But yeah, ease of use is nobody's priority
- nickdothutton 3y agoI think there is a gap here between those who routinely (exclusively?) used UNIX machines along with 50, 100, 1000 other people all logged in at once (generally pre-Linux era) and those who only ever got to see and enjoy a time when everyone could have a UNIX workstation on their desktop (Linux, Mac, or other x86 flavour, take your pick).
- hedora 3y agoBack in the shared era, the machines were better-suited to individual customization, and were more easily understood by system administrators. Now, they're optimized too... waste more computational resources when idle?
- wpietri 3y agoYeah, I really feel like we're in a "horseless carriage" or "radio with pictures" era for computing. We have incredibly powerful machines available. But the dominant paradigm for managing that power is to slice it up into things that simulate much less powerful processors in software environments designed for a shared 1970s university department minicomputer. In many ways I love it, of course. It's what I grew up on, and I'm sure I'll have a small Linux cluster in the retirement home, because that's how computers are "supposed to be". But I think the old paradigm has only lasted so long because we have so much computing power to burn.
- jaystraw 3y agoI'm not sure I understand. When the "old paradigm" was new, computing power was much more limited. They couldn't afford to "burn" any computing power. But it's only stuck around, because now we have more computing power? That doesn't make sense
- wpietri 3y agoYou might read some Kuhn. Paradigms change when the old one becomes unsupportable. But the vast increase in computing power per dollar means we can waste a lot of it without it being economically uncomfortable. Well, most of us. A good check on this is a podcast where Dr Kevin Bowers is interviewed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlzWM5GKQT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlzWM5GKQT8 He works for a financial trading firm, where the competitive nature of it means that every processor cycle counts. For him, older paradigms are perplexing and irritating, because they are major barriers to getting the most out of the hardware.
- Eldt 3y agoIt's both hilarious and unintuitive, but for some people their personal familiarity trumps most other things
- pierat 3y agoIt's makes a lot more sense when you realize that /usr doesn't stand for "user", but "user software resources".
- gjvc 3y agounix system resources
- kps 3y ago/usr stands for ‘user’. In particular, in our own version of the system, there is a directory "/usr" which contains all user's directories, and which is stored on a relatively large, but slow moving head disk, while the othe files are on the fast but small fixed-head disk. — https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/notes.html https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/notes.html
- dreamcompiler 3y agoX11 clients and servers are now whispering "Hold my beer."
- ElectricalUnion 3y agoIf you want to use /usr for yourself, be prepared to throw the FHS and compability with almost everything away and rebuild your whole userland with something like NixOS/Guix.