"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Visualizing it like this makes it so clear how incredibly outdated this design is.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...
This is the FHS layout, which is one of the common layout style for Unix-like OSes, and it has nothing to do with Linux or filesystems in general. Misleading information. GoboLinux has what they call the GoboLinux hierarchy layout, that adheres to NeXTSTEP or BeOS. Nix and Guix has the Store hierarchy layout, wherein, everything is contained inside a store directory. Filesystems include FAT16, FAT32, exFAT, BTRFS, Bcachefs or EXT1/2/3/4, just to mention a few examples.
except 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'm pretty sure
sbinoriginally meant static binaries and not system binaries lolI'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.
