probably it was not already mentioned:
1. using long directory names will produce longer [system/user/daemon/whatever-configuration/setup/initialization] files (without any additional information).
2. using additional directory levels will slow down the system (especially on system wide resources, like libraries, binaries and configs) because the system must check the access rights of all the elements of the paths involved during the execution of commands. (believe it or not, but anyway you can check it, if you are in doubt).

So keep it simple and short! By the way the usual linux/unix commands are two-three letters long, they are all abbreviations. Do you want to replace them too?

In short, without knowing how current naming and the whole system is organized there really is no point suggesting "improvements".

The original PC-DOS version 1 had no directories: everything on the HD (if you actually had one) was dumped side-by-side. I can remember creating a data directory when version 2 arrived! So even Microsoft users have their legacies…

i like symlinks.
they're like hidden shortcuts and staircases behind tapestry doors.


this.
there's a similar fun fact for trains; the wheels are apart that precise distance because that was the best way to have it when carriages used to have 2 horses in front of them.
it's just history, and i like it. it always gives me a profound sense of belonging and continuity.


lol.
imagine 'ls' was replaced by 'ListDirectoryContents'!

How about Get-ChildItem, as in PowerShell? https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/.../hh849800.aspx

Thank you all for stopping by and reading my rant. I still stand by it mostly. Have a nice day everyone.

Makes no sense to change them. Just learn what they mean, as you have done and that's all there is to it.

Is it safe to assume that you don't make much use of the command line? sysadmins and lots of *nix users, do and it's sysadmins who have to worry about most of those directories. Shell scripts also prefer the nice and simple 3 letter directory names.

In your /home/you_user_name/ you can create whatever directories you like, named however you like.

It does not make sense to change them for so many reasons, but I think it is an important concept to consider from time to time. Historical and technical reasons aside, it implies that someone is looking BELOW the gui desktop interface and wondering "why?". That matters. A LOT!

We have distributions that are quite different from all others specifically BECAUSE someone asked this kind of question. Some of those maintainers started out not terribly technical asking this kind of question and deciding to TRY something. In a very few cases such questions and decisions have changed the course of the entire community (NOT without some kicking and screaming being involved).

I, for one, want to thank the OP and everyone who commented. There was decent food for thought here.

Sorry. I can't even imagine how you got that implication and I certainly know DOS came a decade after Unix. What I said was that the concept of putting all programs in one directory came about with DOS (with HUGE reliance on and possibly outright theft from CP/M). Nowhere did I state that Unix took anything from DOS, just to clarify things that apparently weren't already clear to anyone.

Good point! It cracks me up whenever I think of Billy Boy's address regarding piracy to the Homebrew Computer Club calling everyone "thieves" in the embodiment of not seeing past one's nose for whose ox is being gored.

Those semantics actually do make sense if look at it in the right direction.
Binaries start at the top of the tree (looking down) and not the other way around.

What I find odd about this whole supposition is the inference that an OS may exist where the system layout is completely obvious without reading the documentation and the suggestion that this would be a good thing.
All OSs I've seen have "odd" system layouts and, indeed, every device I have configured could be thought of as "not semantic" yet, oddly, here we are.
To add to that -- I would hope that anybody without the intelligence to read the documentation understand Linux's and other OS's configurations would not be doing it. If you can't understand the, relatively simple, way files are laid out then you should not be concerned with it.

I had not thought that quite this way, but when you say that it strikes me that the file and folder structure is NOT for people. The structure is important to the OS so that programs (not people) can find exactly the resources they need to run quickly and well. The user interface needs clarity of a different kind, and should be clear and easy for a HUMAN to use. The file structures should be clear and easy for the SOFTWARE to use. Naturally there is a huge difference, it is REQUIRED!

I personally prefer FreeBSD filesystem structure. I think it's cleaner and more defined. It's just that there are tools in Linux OS (kernel and mostly GNUs) that I prefer.

I didn't realise there was much difference between the BSD and Linux structures, since Linux is largely designed as Unix-like. What are the differences?