Does the linux file structure work?

[SunnyRabbiera]

as I said /usr directory is for users, this is a common directory in unix filesystems...
unix is a multiuser OS by default, the /usr /lib and /shared directories are all important in keeping the files separate and secure.
Really if you need to complain you will find the OSX filesystem no different.
http://osxdaily.com/2007/03/30/mac-o...#comment-31862

Only windows has the type of file system you request, and trust me its file structure is a part of its issues...
But not everything is as well organized in windows too you know, there isnt just C/program files, there is crap in application data, the windows directory too.

[abhiroopb]

I am not complaining!!!! Why do you keep assuming that I am complaining? I am happy with Ubuntu (again I've said it!). And I don't care what Mac OSX users, what difference does it make with my question here.

And I don't care that windows has problems (thats not why I am here).

All i want to know is why is the file structure of linus designed the way it is. So far you've just said that it is to keep things separate and secure. How does that work? Couldn't I just as easily delete it? and I though /home was for users what is there in /usr anyway?

[SunnyRabbiera]

Again we talk about linux and unix filesytems here...
there is a big difference between /home and /usr
the home directory is assigned to its respectable owner, but the usr directory is something else.
there is the root folder directories such as /bin and /sbin, these are seperated from the main binaries as they are improtant to the OS.
the /usr directory contains files that ALL users will use in some shape or manner and dont need root accounts to access.
and here we have another page explaining things

[SupaSonic]

I'm with abhiroopb on this. It doesn't really bother me, but I don't know what's going on in these folders as well. And the suggestion that if I don't know this I should use Windows is stupid. The way / organized is NOT intuitive, and I believe this is the point the OP is making. For instance we have /bin, /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. Now I'm sure there are perfectly justified reasons for this, but it still might puzzle somebody more curious than me.

As for installing programs from source, I use checkinstall to make debs from source and install them. At least I can uninstall those debs later, albeit checkinstall has its own issues.

[master5o1]

I believe /usr has nothing to do with users but actually unix system resources. I may be wrong.

[ThrobbingBrain66]

Here is the Unix Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. It's quite long, but I believe you'll find your answers.

http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html

[abhiroopb]

So if sbin and bin perform similar functions can they not be one directory? My issue isn't even that its not intuitive, because I guess if you want to mess around with it thats your problem. My question is there still a genuine need? I mean I'm sure that this sharing lib files or whatever made sense when disk space was limited, but does that still apply? Why not package each program with all the required dependencies? Make it one package with everything.

[OoooMatron]

@abhiroopb

I also agree with you on the points you make.

It's near impossible to fully track a program that has been installed and you can never fully tidy up your files with confidence after manually removing. How can you know where it's all installed?? Why doesn't it have it's own folder with all the files in it? Beats me. It's like the old windows days when files could literally be placed anywhere.

I'd like a single directory per program to understand what was put there. Much easier.

[SunnyRabbiera]

because linux does not use binary installers, and if there was a installer file like that on windows it will be too big.
as for your question, yes its better to have sbin and bin separate, that way if normal binaries become corrupted they wont infect key files.

@abhiroopb

I also agree with you on the points you make.

It's near impossible to fully track a program that has been installed and you can never fully tidy up your files with confidence after manually removing. How can you know where it's all installed?? Why doesn't it have it's own folder with all the files in it? Beats me. It's like the old windows days when files could literally be placed anywhere.

I'd like a single directory per program to understand what was put there. Much easier.

again, if you want a filesystem like this use windows...

[abhiroopb]

Its clear that newer users are finding it a hassle as Oooo points out. But again to reiterate I'm sure as I become a more advanced user I will see that there are justifiable reasons. I guess I'll read the links to figure out what those reasons are!