# say goodbye to /bin, /usr/local/* , ...



## Crivens (Nov 8, 2011)

Just found this great idea to simplify the system. So let's say goodbye to the idea of /usr/local and provide the port maintainers with loads of aspirin in coming updates. Judging from the 'progress' provided by udev, a good structured system layout will most probably go the way of the dodo - if this goes through.


----------



## Alt (Nov 8, 2011)

L*x guys started to think about hier(7) ? xDDD


----------



## SirDice (Nov 8, 2011)

Crivens said:
			
		

> Just found this great idea to simplify the system.


I thought they already simplified it? Just drop your stuff anywhere you like x(


----------



## Crivens (Nov 8, 2011)

Just remembered that there was some trouble with systemd, done by HeWhoShallNotBeNamed. You get a warning when you run a seperate /usr file system and "things may break, sometimes silently".
This is going to be fun! Where is my popcorn?


----------



## Alt (Nov 8, 2011)

+1.
Beware, putting your stuff in /usr can lead to this https://github.com/MrMEEE/bumblebee/commit/a047be85247755cdbe0acce6#diff-1


----------



## gkontos (Nov 8, 2011)

/usr/local is one of the reasons why I use FreeBSD.
I wish that we could also have a /var/local as well...


----------



## freethread (Nov 8, 2011)

Alt said:
			
		

> +1.
> Beware, putting your stuff in /usr can lead to this https://github.com/MrMEEE/bumblebee/commit/a047be85247755cdbe0acce6#diff-1



lol



> ^^^^^ c'mon, he fixed it!


----------



## bbzz (Nov 8, 2011)

Alt said:
			
		

> +1.
> Beware, putting your stuff in /usr can lead to this https://github.com/MrMEEE/bumblebee/commit/a047be85247755cdbe0acce6#diff-1



Thank you, thank you so much for bringing this up, I'll be LOL-ing this whole week... :e


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Nov 8, 2011)

Crivens said:
			
		

> Just found this great idea to simplify the system. So let's say goodbye to the idea of /usr/local and provide the port maintainers with loads of aspirin in coming updates. Judging from the 'progress' provided by udev, a good structured system layout will most probably go the way of the dodo - if this goes through.



Actually, this is not such a bad idea IMHO.

Even on FreeBSD, there is no real difference between /usr/bin and /bin; the reasons for the separate directories are mostly historical and no longer valid in 2011. Merging them would be a bit like the /usr/X11R6/ merge with /usr/local/ back in FreeBSD 6 (or 5?).

Linux (and thus Fedora) doesn't have a separate /usr/local anyway, like it or not, this is how Linux works. And mounting a separate /usr/ isn't supported on Linux anymore, so why *not* merge these directories?


----------



## gkontos (Nov 8, 2011)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> Actually, this is not such a bad idea IMHO.
> 
> Even on FreeBSD, there is no real difference between /usr/bin and /bin; the reasons for the separate directories are mostly historical and no longer valid in 2011. Merging them would be a bit like the /usr/X11R6/ merge with /usr/local/ back in FreeBSD 6 (or 5?).
> 
> Linux (and thus Fedora) doesn't have a separate /usr/local anyway, like it or not, this is how Linux works. And mounting a separate /usr/ isn't supported on Linux anymore, so why *not* merge these directories?



The main reason is that you can separate OS binaries and settings from software binaries and settings. That way you can easily install/upgrade software without affecting the OS. You can also backup your system more effectively. If we also take into account ZFS snapshots and their rollback ability, we can easily see the benefits of that separation.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Nov 9, 2011)

gkontos said:
			
		

> The main reason is that you can separate OS binaries and settings from software binaries and settings. That way you can easily install/upgrade software without affecting the OS. You can also backup your system more effectively. If we also take into account ZFS snapshots and their rollback ability, we can easily see the benefits of that separation.



This doesn't apply since we are talking about Linux which doesn't make that distinction.


----------



## anomie (Nov 9, 2011)

I can't decide whether this is a great idea or not, but I do think their FAQ brings up reasonable points. 

In theory, this will bring some simplicity and tidiness to what is currently a bats%^# crazy mess on Fedora (or, I should say, on many recent GNU/Linux distros).


----------



## Crivens (Nov 9, 2011)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> This doesn't apply since we are talking about Linux which doesn't make that distinction.



Yes, but what bugs me is that sooner or later this will be shoved down our throats, no matter if we want it or not. Of course there is no big reason to keep /bin and /usr/bin separate, but when you throw anything into /usr/bin anyway you will end up with a great mess.

Also, one of the positive points claimed is that you now can mount /usr read-only, but systemd does not like it if it is a separate partition. That's where the fun will come in.


----------



## gkontos (Nov 9, 2011)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> This doesn't apply since we are talking about Linux which doesn't make that distinction.



I was just expressing my views about merging this philosophy in FreeBSD.

Cheers!

George


----------



## SirDice (Nov 9, 2011)

It's not exactly a 'new' idea. 


```
dice@labu05:~>uname -a
SunOS labu05 5.8 Generic_108528-29 sun4u sparc SUNW,UltraAX-i2 Solaris
dice@labu05:~>ls -li /bin/tcsh /usr/bin/tcsh
52139 -r-xr-xr-x  1 root bin 331332 Mar 15  2001 /bin/tcsh*
52139 -r-xr-xr-x  1 root bin 331332 Mar 15  2001 /usr/bin/tcsh*
```


----------



## kpedersen (Nov 9, 2011)

Yeah but Solaris makes up for that with hundreds of other prefixes (which I love btw)

/opt/csw
/usr/sfw
/usr/5bin
... many many more...

I also think it should be made a *legal* requirement to put Gnome or other massive software into a separate prefix to the rest of the system.


----------



## Pushrod (Nov 9, 2011)

I support a merge of /usr/bin and /usr/sbin with /bin and /sbin respectively.

I don't support the same with add-on packages; they belong in a separate hierarchy.


----------



## mix_room (Nov 9, 2011)

Andrew S. Thanenbaum said it wonderfully: 



> The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from.



Personally I think that the FreeBSD solution is great. /bin and /sbin are available at start and belong to the system, while the rest is loaded separately.

Merging /bin and /sbin might be more useful on the other hand. Do people use this distinction?


----------



## nakal (Nov 9, 2011)

> Personally I think that the FreeBSD solution is great. /bin and /sbin are available at start and belong to the system, while the rest is loaded separately.



Exactly.



> Merging /bin and /sbin might be more useful on the other hand. Do people use this distinction?



Yes. Usually sbin directories are nothing for normal users. Most of the binaries there are for admins. So you can simplify the PATH environment a bit.


----------



## aragon (Nov 10, 2011)

SirDice said:
			
		

> I thought they already simplified it? Just drop your stuff anywhere you like x(


I wonder how long until everything is in /etc?  Linux root filesystem in 2015:

/Moviez
/Gamez
/pr0n
/etc


----------



## YZMSQ (Nov 10, 2011)

aragon said:
			
		

> I wonder how long until everything is in /etc?  Linux root filesystem in 2015:
> 
> /Moviez
> /Gamez
> ...


LOL. Maybe there'll be only one entry: /Linux. That's all.


----------



## Alt (Nov 10, 2011)

Linux root filesystem in 2016:
/Program Files/
/Program Files(x86)/
/My Documents/
/boot/
/proc/
/etc/ <-- there is a storage for symlinks to every file in system

/usr/ was deprecated and removed from all distros because systemd & co failed to manage it


----------



## Crivens (Nov 10, 2011)

aragon said:
			
		

> I wonder how long until everything is in /etc?  Linux root filesystem in 2015:
> 
> /Moviez
> /Gamez
> ...



I won't wager on it. I like my money


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Nov 10, 2011)

Image what would happen if all the obscure and archaic abbreviations in the UNIX filesystem get replaced by meaningful and logical descriptions ?!?! q *gasp* :O *shock* ... :OO)


----------



## Crivens (Nov 10, 2011)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> Image what would happen if all the obscure and archaic abbreviations in the UNIX filesystem get replaced by meaningful and logical descriptions ?!?! q *gasp* :O *shock* ... :OO)



Good idea.
But maybe it would be worth a try


----------



## freethread (Nov 10, 2011)

to be or not to be... unix-like or windows-like... that's the matter. unindows-like


----------



## Alt (Nov 10, 2011)

freethread said:
			
		

> unindows-like


Good expression for os-which-cannot-be-named


----------

