Find the answer to your Linux question:
Results 1 to 3 of 3
Hello Everyone, I'm sure many of you have seen the extremely large number of requests online, for a new file system hierarchy in the Linux world. Mostly from noobs that ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14

    System Hierarchy


    Hello Everyone,

    I'm sure many of you have seen the extremely large number of requests online, for a new file system hierarchy in the Linux world. Mostly from noobs that can't get a handle on current FHS; however more recently a large outcry from developers, and the academic communities has been heard.

    Unfortunately for me, I do agree with the notion that our hierarchy has far out-lived its use. And because I agree with this I can not seem to get it out of my mind that I can help in doing something about it.

    I have completed a couple LFS systems and I already know there is absolutely no help provided for this area, in any of the released books. For a trial I decided to quickly lunge through the book making one change: I would keep the current directory completely intact and just change the names of the folders to something more user friendly. Example { lib = Library }

    The results was actually far better then what I anticipated.... It seems almost every program had absolutely no problems with the change, as long as during the configure process you stated the directory name and path. YES!!! it seems programmers remembered something from their studies, and used variables instead of hard paths.

    Of course there had to be a culprit... "Linux". That's right everyones' favourite kernel, and those programs that run the kernels file system such as dev and sys. Even more disturbing is reading the README files provided with them, where they flat out state a refusal to support an alternative folder name or path.

    OK that's only a couple programs, no problem. I can just change a few hardwired paths and were set! So I started all over again this time we will test actually changing the hierarchy to something more suitable to the methods requested by the complainers:

    System
    ---->Run32
    ---->Run64 {only if a 64-bit system}
    ---->Lib32
    ---->Lib64 {only if a 64-bit system}
    ---->Settings {think of /etc if you like}
    ---->Kernel {kernel related items in sub folders}
    ---->Root {Admin Programs... Every Program gets its own folder}

    Network {This folder is optional and completely up in the air as to how to structure it}
    ---->Programs
    ---->Libraries
    ---->Virtual FileSystems

    Devices {Think of this as /mnt NOT! /dev}
    ---->Floppy
    ---->CD
    ---->DVD
    ---->USB1
    ---->You get the point!

    Users
    ----> Shared Account
    ------->Documents
    ------->Programs {inside every program gets its own folder}

    ---->{Some User}
    ------->Documents
    ------->Programs {inside every program gets its own folder}
    ------->Environment {personal application and environment settings for shared programs}

    Pretty nice huh? Clear logic, well defined folder names and structure, and just as secure. Notice the clear distinction of system from other program. Clearly user/root programs will not be in the path by default.

    It seems that a lot of the programs, although they let you choose the path to where to install their files ASSUME that every program must store their files there.... EXAMPLE: "I depend on program 'A' .... I was told my path is ../foo therefore program 'A' must also be located there!....... WRONG"

    I guess this is going to be a big process after all! I would like to get a group of people together interested in making this system a reality. So I am starting a poll to see how many people would be interested in working on such a system, and would appreciate any and all feedback.

    The good news is obvious. This system is in EXTREMELY high demand, do a few google searches and this will become amazingly clear. Thanks everyone.

  2. #2
    Linux Guru Juan Pablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    /home/south_america/ecuador/quito
    Posts
    2,064
    Creating a new file system structure may involve updating ALL rpms, debs and tgzs which rely in the actual structure to your new proposed format which is very unpractical in my opinion. I am happy with my file system structure and I'm sure a lot of people out there also and changing it would be a pain in the ass for all us.

    You can't just arrive and say to a bunch of people change your old and practical file system structure because mine is better.

    the new guy in the group should adapt to the group he is entering! not viceversa!
    Put your hand in an oven for a minute and it will be like an hour, sit beside a beautiful woman for an hour and it will be like a minute, that is relativity. --Albert Einstein
    Linux User #425940

    Don't PM me with questions, instead post in the forums

  3. #3
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14
    Sorry bud this thread was moved to http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/cof...hierarchy.html

    Please post your comment there

    A NOTE:

    I am not asking people to change the FHS to Mine...... I am simply asking programmers to use variables instead of hard paths, so that users can make their own choices. What's right for person A is not always right for person B or person C.
    Linux is about choice.... not just in the areas we like. There must be choice in all areas.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •