• Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    ·
    3 months ago

    "Linux File Systems"

    *List of root directories*

    Uh, where are the file systems? EXT4... BTRFS... FAT32...

      • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
        ·
        3 months ago

        According to this, it's been around since the 70's and was originally just a catch-all for files that didn't fit in the other default directories, but over time has come to be mostly used for config files. I assume it would cause utter mayhem to try and change the name now so I guess it just sticks. Someone suggested "Edit To Configure" as a backronym to try and make it make more sense if that helps anyone lol.

  • Hyacin (He/Him)@lemmy.ml
    ·
    3 months ago

    I learned about 16 years ago on a Solaris course that /usr wasn't "user", I still say "user", but I'm happy to see the information spreading that that isn't what it actually is.

    • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
      ·
      3 months ago

      I used to pronounce it like yuzr, knowing that it wasn't user, but not knowing what it was.
      Now I have better context. Maybe I'll go with U.S.R.

      • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
        ·
        3 months ago

        If you want to confuse people... I pronounce /etc as "ets", but one of my coworkers recently called it "slash e t c" and I had to ask him to repeat it a couple times before I figured out what he meant...

        • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well, considering that I am with coworkers who don't remember when to and not to put the '/' at the start of the file path (despite me explaining it to them multiple times), "slash e t c" is probably the better way.

  • wvstolzing@lemmy.ml
    ·
    3 months ago

    A pedantic thing to say, surely, but the title really should've been: "Linux Directory Structure" -- 'Linux filesystems' (the title in the graphic) refers to a different topic entirely; the title of this post mitigates the confusion a bit, though still, 'directory structure' is the better term.

  • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    ·
    3 months ago

    It feels like /opt 's official meaning is completely lost on developers/packagers (depending on who's at fault), every single directory in my /opt belongs to standalone software that should just be put into either /usr/lib or /usr/share with some symlinks or scripts into /usr/bin.

    • NonWonderDog [he/him]
      ·
      3 months ago

      No, they have it right. Add-on software means “added to this node/machine”, as in not part of the system image used to configure multiple machines. It’s all very archaic.

  • Samueru@lemmy.ml
    ·
    3 months ago

    I'm pretty sure sbin originally meant static binaries and not system binaries lol

      • baseless_discourse@mander.xyz
        ·
        3 months ago

        /run is a temporary fs, so if the mount, filesystem or even the entire system crashed, all the mounted data will be cleaned up after a reboot.

        On the contrary, if the mount crashed, it might leave a folder or data on /media, making subsequent mount problematic.

        Here is a well-written comment about the rationale behind this mount point: https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxquestions/comments/tzo984/comment/i40e2za/

  • Affidavit@lemm.ee
    ·
    3 months ago

    I've been using Linux on and off for years and I've never really understood what these different directories are for. If I don't know where something is I just search for it, though more often than not whatever I'm looking for is somewhere in the home directory. I'm also not sure of the accuracy of this though. I have a VM in /run, and an SSD and thumb drive in /media. I would've expected these to be in /mnt.

  • ngn@lemy.lol
    ·
    3 months ago

    honestly /home should has never been created we should have kept user homes in /usr