I was wondering whether it was a bad idea to have a non-standard directory structure on my system.
The standard structure seems to be something like:
/home/$USER/ [$USER's home directory]
~/ [a shortcut for the above]
/bin/ [binaries (programs) that are accessible by anyone]
/sbin/ [binaries that are accessible only by the super user]
And so on and so forth.
I didn't like this system because it doesn't seem to allow much sharing of files between users. It can be done, certainly, but it just seemed a bit cumbersome. I am the only person who uses my computer in my house, and I wanted to have things like my music collection available for all users - when I'm root I still want to be able to hear it and you never know, I might one day have a guest user who also wants to hear some music. The structure I opted for is one where most of the files and stuff are stored in the root directory. It goes something like this:
/snd/ [where I keep all sound files, such as edited snippets, system sounds, etc]
/img/ [images. This directory is a categorised into subdirectories, a system that works well with Digikam]
/music/ [my music collection]
/downloads/ [downloaded files from the internet]
/backup/ [mount point for another HDD for when I back up. Which I haven't done for a very long time, come to think of it...]
/stuff/ [storage place for general crap]
/school/ [hey, I should be able to delete this soon!
That's pretty much the gist of it. All directories have permissions rwxrwxrwx (or 777) so that all users can use them. Can anybody see any problems with this - I know that most of the protocols that have been developed in Linux developed the way they did for a good reason and I don't want to find out why! (Not the hard way, anyway). For example, if I accidentally download a malicious program into /downloads/ have I circumvented the security measures inherent in the Linux system?
Does anybody else have a non-standard directory structure?