"Linux File Systems"
*List of root directories*
Uh, where are the file systems? EXT4... BTRFS... FAT32...
wait /usr doesn't mean user?
/etc has to be the worst name in there
According to this, it's been around since the 70's and was originally just a catch-all for files that didn't fit in the other default directories, but over time has come to be mostly used for config files. I assume it would cause utter mayhem to try and change the name now so I guess it just sticks. Someone suggested "Edit To Configure" as a backronym to try and make it make more sense if that helps anyone lol.
I learned about 16 years ago on a Solaris course that /usr wasn't "user", I still say "user", but I'm happy to see the information spreading that that isn't what it actually is.
I used to pronounce it like yuzr, knowing that it wasn't user, but not knowing what it was.
Now I have better context. Maybe I'll go with U.S.R.If you want to confuse people... I pronounce /etc as "ets", but one of my coworkers recently called it "slash e t c" and I had to ask him to repeat it a couple times before I figured out what he meant...
Well, considering that I am with coworkers who don't remember when to and not to put the '/' at the start of the file path (despite me explaining it to them multiple times), "slash e t c" is probably the better way.
A pedantic thing to say, surely, but the title really should've been: "Linux Directory Structure" -- 'Linux filesystems' (the title in the graphic) refers to a different topic entirely; the title of this post mitigates the confusion a bit, though still, 'directory structure' is the better term.
Sure but for example I understand that /dev and /proc are actually kind of filesystems on their own
Visualizing it like this makes it so clear how incredibly outdated this design is.
It feels like
/opt's official meaning is completely lost on developers/packagers (depending on who's at fault), every single directory in my/optbelongs to standalone software that should just be put into either/usr/libor/usr/sharewith some symlinks or scripts into/usr/bin.I've also seen creating there deployment or configuration stack of your choice.
No, they have it right. Add-on software means “added to this node/machine”, as in not part of the system image used to configure multiple machines. It’s all very archaic.
Why is /mnt a "temporary" mounting point? I alwags put my permanent ones there. I'd say /media is temporary...
I'm pretty sure
sbinoriginally meant static binaries and not system binaries lolexcept nowadays many distro mounts removable media under /run/media instead of /media (for good reason).
/run is a temporary fs, so if the mount, filesystem or even the entire system crashed, all the mounted data will be cleaned up after a reboot.
On the contrary, if the mount crashed, it might leave a folder or data on /media, making subsequent mount problematic.
Here is a well-written comment about the rationale behind this mount point: https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxquestions/comments/tzo984/comment/i40e2za/
I've been using Linux on and off for years and I've never really understood what these different directories are for. If I don't know where something is I just search for it, though more often than not whatever I'm looking for is somewhere in the home directory. I'm also not sure of the accuracy of this though. I have a VM in /run, and an SSD and thumb drive in /media. I would've expected these to be in /mnt.
honestly /home should has never been created we should have kept user homes in /usr
