News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split.

Re:Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split by triffidhunter on Friday January 27, 2012 @04:05PM (#3520161)
The Fedora changes are bikeshedding. They start with wanting to change something, and then find a justification. Why not just put all the executables files in /Program Files/?

All this to save a few bytes in $PATH, to avoid problems with systemd, and to avoid fixing udev.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split by sirclueless on Saturday January 28, 2012 @01:38AM (#3521499)
That would break compatibility with a lot of existing scripts, which look for things in /bin, /lib, /usr/bin etc.

There are specific reasons why having a single mount point for all OS-provided binaries is a good idea, for example because maintaining a split that differs across distros and unixes is a maintenance nightmare. The main counterargument -- that it is desirable to have a minimally functional system without /usr mounted -- has been obsolete for years.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split by aaronh on Friday January 27, 2012 @05:23PM (#3520471)
why not put all .txt files in /txt? we have .../man for man pages, .../lib for libs, .../src or source and .../include for C includes after all.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split by im3w1l on Sunday January 29, 2012 @08:03AM (#3525153)
I know, I know! Why not let the extension indicate which package a file belongs to? Then we could have /txt/readme.GTK
[ Parent | on HN ]