LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 03-06-2014, 03:51 PM   #16
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,902

Rep: Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963

Quote:
Originally Posted by moisespedro View Post
Just think about "/usr", for example, it is often misunderstood as "user" but it actually stands for "Unix System Resource".
Nope, it really does mean user!

From lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Landley
When the operating system grew too big to fit on the first RK05 disk pack (their root filesystem) they let it leak into the second one, which is where all the user home directories lived (which is why the mount was called /usr). They replicated all the OS directories under there (/bin, /sbin, /lib, /tmp...) and wrote files to those new directories because their original disk was out of space. When they got a third disk, they mounted it on /home and relocated all the user directories to there so the OS could consume all the space on both disks and grow to THREE WHOLE MEGABYTES (ooooh!).
Don't believe Rob? Ok, here are some notes from Dennis Ritchie from 15 March, 1972 where he briefly mentions the purpose of /usr

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Ritchie
In particular, in our own version of the system, there is a directory "/usr" which contains all user's directories, and which is stored on a relatively large, but slow moving head disk, while the othe files are on the fast but small fixed-head disk.
 
7 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-06-2014, 03:52 PM   #17
szboardstretcher
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: Detroit, MI
Distribution: GNU/Linux systemd
Posts: 3,411
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 1115Reputation: 1115Reputation: 1115Reputation: 1115Reputation: 1115Reputation: 1115Reputation: 1115Reputation: 1115Reputation: 1115
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
Nope, it really does mean user!

From lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html:



Don't believe Rob? Ok, here are some notes from Dennis Ritchie from 15 March, 1972 where he briefly mentions the purpose of /usr
I believe that was back when /usr was used as /home. No?
 
Old 03-06-2014, 04:06 PM   #18
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,902

Rep: Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by szboardstretcher View Post
I believe that was back when /usr was used as /home. No?
Sure (did you read the whole quotes?), anyway it is the reason why /usr is named thusly (since it was for users to have their files). "Unix System Resource" is just a backronym, invented later.

Last edited by ruario; 03-06-2014 at 04:11 PM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-06-2014, 04:21 PM   #19
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,902

Rep: Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963Reputation: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnashley View Post
As an aside, the current buzz around eliminating /bin, /sbin and /lib similarly accomplishes a less-useful, less-informative structure.
Are you talking about the suggested merger of these into /usr? If so, have you ever read Rob Landley's post to the BusyBox mailing list? If not I would encourage you to.

I also asked Pat about this once, here is a snipit of what he had to say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy View Post
LQ) What do you think about Fedora and Solaris 'simplifying' the filesystem by doing stuff like merging /usr/bin and /bin? Something you would ever consider? (ruario)

volkerdi) Sure, I could see doing that, but we'll see how it goes elsewhere and to what extent things start to expect it to be that way. On Slackware (and other systems) a lot of the binaries that would otherwise install to /usr/bin have to be moved to /bin because they are needed before /usr is available, if /usr is on a separate partition. Likewise, libraries have also had to move. This has led to a lot of symlinks pointing from /usr/bin to /bin, or from /usr/sbin to /sbin, and elsewhere around the system. Now, I'm not sure that I consider this to be a bad enough situation that it's worth the pain of changing it, but it's certainly under consideration. Really, the most painful requirement about /usr was the rule that it had to be possible to mount it as a network volume. That might have been a good idea at the time when hard drives were expensive and small, but it probably isn't done a whole lot today.

Last edited by ruario; 03-06-2014 at 04:25 PM.
 
Old 03-06-2014, 04:39 PM   #20
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 908

Rep: Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by szboardstretcher View Post
I believe that was back when /usr was used as /home. No?
On BSD UNIX, if there are only two disks (partitions), home directories go into /usr/home. So /usr still makes perfect sense.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-06-2014, 04:47 PM   #21
j_v
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2011
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 213

Rep: Reputation: 32
@ruario:

Many thanks for your contributions on this topic. Very enlightening quotes. I also appreciate the links to the sources. I've studied some on the history of unix, but usually from the viewpoint of the developement of the c language in relation to unix evolution. It's always a good day to learn something unexpected
 
Old 03-06-2014, 05:07 PM   #22
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 908

Rep: Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
Are you talking about the suggested merger of these into /usr? If so, have you ever read Rob Landley's post to the BusyBox mailing list? If not I would encourage you to.
Of course, here we have an embedded developer having to deal with Unix heritage, because he wants to use Linux (an Unix clone) as a kernel . But in a custom-built embedded installation you don't really need anything else than a /busybox.

Unlike BSD, Linux userland never had a well-designed /usr separation that made sense, so Rob is right in this respect. The classic question of intelligent design vs. evolution. As far as I understood, BSD separated single-user and multi-user into / and /usr and I know of no plans to change that. BSD's mechanism for in-place upgrades of the operating system depends on it. Also / played the role of /boot for a long time (kernel was just called /bsd and the bootloader could only read /) and /usr/local gets all the third party packages, a distinction Linux never made.

So yes, Linux' filesystem hierarchy is a chaotic mess, a result of chaotic evolution. But trying to design stuff retroactively only harms the ecosystem by breaking compatibility. I think we should keep software compatible, there are people out there, who depend on it. Just accept it and embrace it.

Last edited by jtsn; 03-06-2014 at 05:14 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-06-2014, 05:13 PM   #23
rkfb
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Guildford, England
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 303

Rep: Reputation: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by guanx View Post
"ls -l /<Shift>p\trograms/<Shift>\tBash/\t\t3.0/b\tin/b\tash" is more keystrokes than "ls -l /bin/bash". Or did I count it wrong?
Although it does mention that Unix commands are still available, it gives:

ls -l /bin/sh | cut -b 45-

as one of the examples.
 
Old 03-06-2014, 05:32 PM   #24
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: LFS-7.6, Slackware 14.1, FreeBSD 10.1
Posts: 3,851
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191
I don't see any real issues with the current tree based system personally. While having things like /programs, /system, etc. all seem more balanced and segregated, this stretches out another old question, "Why does GNU/Linux have to be like DOS/Windows?"

I think the tree based structure of /(root), /usr, /usr/local, /home, and other system partitions allow for easier resource structuring, network accessibility, and system control. It's far superior to anything Windows has in terms of modularity.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-06-2014, 08:20 PM   #25
moisespedro
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Location: Brazil
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,144

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 152Reputation: 152
I've seen people calling it "user" and Unix Resources, I am confused. I read it as "user" anyways.
EDIT: Yeah, I rather use the "normal" way than something that looks like a bit with Windows
 
Old 03-06-2014, 09:55 PM   #26
enorbet
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware 14 is Main OpSys on Main PC, 2ndary are OpenSuSe 13 and SolydK
Posts: 737

Rep: Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345Reputation: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by moisespedro View Post
You only know "mnt" stands for "mount" once you learnt it. Just think about "/usr", for example, it is often misunderstood as "user" but it actually stands for "Unix System Resource". And, Gobo's way (lets call it this way) does not break anything. I am not saying I like it, I am just saying that it doesn't break compatibility.
Greetz
The reason I mentioned Brazilian methods was that it really doesn't matter if anyone realizes "mnt" means "mount". In short order they know it's where non-root file systems go. Similarly, while I speak "/usr" phonetically as if it were "user", I really don't care what it was originally meant to be... only how it functions. In just a day or two of reading about and using Linux, I knew the basics of what is stored there. Same with "/var" etc.... I mean "/etc" etc :P
 
Old 03-06-2014, 11:34 PM   #27
michaelslack
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2013
Location: Sydney
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 94

Rep: Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by moisespedro View Post
And, Gobo's way (lets call it this way) does not break anything. I am not saying I like it, I am just saying that it doesn't break compatibility.
It looks nice on the surface, e.g. mapping /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/local/bin all to /Programs but note the following.

On slackware by default, for an ordinary user the command
Code:
which userdel
returns something like
Code:
which: no userdel in (/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/games:/usr/lib/java/bin:/usr/lib/java/jre/bin:/usr/lib/kde4/libexec:/usr/lib/qt/bin)
because /usr/sbin is not on an ordinary user's path (by default), i.e. it is possible to "hide" certain commands from ordinary users.

It seems to me that if /usr/sbin and /usr/bin both link to /Programs then you can't do this.

Michael
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-07-2014, 12:47 AM   #28
solarfields
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Outer Shpongolia
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 494

Rep: Reputation: 132Reputation: 132
Quote:
it organizes the programs in your system in a new, logical way
i find the current organisation logical
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-07-2014, 10:27 AM   #29
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: LFS-7.6, Slackware 14.1, FreeBSD 10.1
Posts: 3,851
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191Reputation: 1191
Exactly.

Btw this is what the tree structure is for:

/(root) - kernel and low level utilities
/usr - user land and network accessible utilities
/usr/local - user land local only utilities
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 03-07-2014, 11:06 AM   #30
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,503

Rep: Reputation: 1027Reputation: 1027Reputation: 1027Reputation: 1027Reputation: 1027Reputation: 1027Reputation: 1027Reputation: 1027
I find the current organisation a bit of a mess. Why is /usr/lib full of stuff that doesn't end with .so or .a? Why is /var/lib called 'lib' at all when it contains rw application data? Why in gods name did they deprecate /usr/libexec when there's clearly a role for it.
IMO the guy who decided "Hey, we don't need libexec, lets just dump everything in directories under /usr/lib" should be taken out back and shot! (ok, maybe that's a little harsh... given a good beating will suffice ).


The problem with Gobo is that they tried to be too radical. Would have been much easier to sell a scheme along the lines of:
/usr/data/... (instead of /usr/share, /usr/games, /usr/info and the like)
/var/data/... (rather than /var/lib etc...)
/opt/$program-$version

The continued use of traditional /usr/... and /var/.. and /opt/... prefixes would have made it seem more like a refinement/evolution of the existing scheme.


BTW, I'm all for the /bin /usr/bin merger. I don't think the split makes sense in the modern world.


... but that's just me. YMMV.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NginX [error] upstream prematurely closed connection while reading reading response kingkashif Linux - Server 2 07-20-2013 05:37 PM
Microsoft Visual C++, Reading from File, Reading an XFile not heirarchy Soulkeeper1987 Programming 1 07-01-2012 05:09 PM
Reading Idris files from Linux distro oggy_bogy Other *NIX 3 01-21-2008 03:29 PM
Distro - ZenWalk Problem - cd/dvd and cdrw/dvdrw not reading disks phaekor Linux - Newbie 3 10-19-2005 07:15 PM
any linux distro can running in RAM , not need CD_ROM reading when running. wangcity Linux - General 3 09-18-2003 06:45 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration