Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Red Hat Software Unix Linux

Fedora Aims To Simplify Linux Filesystem 803

Posted by samzenpus
from the like-sunday-morning dept.
jfruhlinger writes "Even Linux's most passionate partisans will admit that its filesystem, which stashes vital files in a variety of arcane directories, can be baffling to users. The developers at the Fedora project want to cut the Gordian knot and consolidate all executables into /usr/bin and all libraries into /usr/lib or /usr/lib64. One downside: this system would conflict with the standards developed by the Linux Standard Base, or the (rarely used) Filesystem Hierarchy Standard."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fedora Aims To Simplify Linux Filesystem

Comments Filter:
  • by billcopc (196330) <> on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @07:06PM (#37927284) Homepage

    How important is that, really ? The only times I've used NTFS compression were for freeing up temp space on ancient servers, back when 9gb and 18gb SCSI drives were the norm. Seems like a throwaway feature to me.

    For portable usage like CD/DVD and USB flash, a full-disk compressor like squashfs is just fine.

  • by jd (1658) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {kapimi}> on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @07:14PM (#37927392) Homepage Journal

    They don't need to. Linux has the ability to read/write compressed files directly (zclib?) and doesn't need the filesystems to support this. Which is great because it means compressed files will work under ALL filesystems ALL of the time (if you have the library installed) and you don't have to wait for each filesystem maintainer to add it. You also have no risks of one FS maintainer deciding another's implementation sucks and not being compatible with it. Which is very likely under Windows.

  • Re:Dumb move (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ThorGod (456163) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @07:16PM (#37927434) Journal

    Uhh, I want my stuff separate from system stuff. I want to be able to back-up my stuff without including standard stuff.

    System essentials should be in /bin. Non-essentials in /usr/bin, and my stuff in /usr/local/bin.

    Fedora has jumped the shark.

    I agree. I suspect the libraries are the more 'needed' change, but your point is valid even there.

    What I'd like to know is what's wrong with the FreeBSD file system, and why don't they just 'do that'? IIRC, everything non-standard is in /usr/local. Some configs are in /etc, but most (all?) non-base configs live in /usr/local/etc. If you blow your system away and have backups of /usr/local and /etc under FreeBSD then you can just reinstall the base system and be 'fine' (aside from the local user files, but that's an obvious restore/backup situation.)

    This smells a lot like "we want to do things our own way" (tm). I suppose that's fine, but don't act like you're doing humanity a service by wiping your butt with a different hand ;)

  • even simpler (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FudRucker (866063) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @07:22PM (#37927520)
    forget /usr, just do /bin /dev /etc /home /lib /media /proc /root /sbin /sys /tmp /var

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin