/bin

>/bin
>/sbin
>/usr/bin
>/usr/include
>/usr/lib
>/usr/sbin
>/usr/local/bin
>/usr/local/include
>/usr/local/lib
>/usr/local/sbin
What a disaster!

Attached: dude what.jpg (500x500, 28K)

Other urls found in this thread:

lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html
vim.org/download.php#pc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Meanwhile loonixfags be like
>Program Files
>Program Files (x86) xDD

why do you expect bin and include to contain similar things?

Why does linux need so many bins while windows has only one on the desktop?

>loonix
*unix

>on the desktop
you mean .lnk?

>/bin
Essential single user core utils (for all users)
>/sbin
Essential system binaries
>/usr
Read-only user data, multiuser utilities and applications
>/usb/bin
Non essential executables (for all users)
>/usr/include
Standard include files
>/usr/lib
Libraries (for binaries in /usr/bin and /usr/sbin)
>/usr/sbin
Non-essential system binaries, typically daemons and network utils (multiuser)
>/usr/local*
Local data specific to this host


Meanwhile
>C:\
>C:\WIN
>C:\Windows
>C:\System
>C:\System32
>C:\SysWOW64
>C:\WinSxS
>C:\Windows\Temporary Internet Files
>C:\Windows\Application Data
>C:\Program Files
>C:\Program Files (x86)
>C:\ProgramData
>C:\Public
>AppData
>C:\username\AppData\Roaming
>C:\username\AppData\Local
>C:\username\AppData\LocalLow
>C:\username\Local Settings

He's probably just meaning compiled binaries, so libs in the include dirs

Both are retarded. we need something new fuck LULNIX and WINLOL

The Unix filesystem hierarchy is garbage, and its guides are dishonest lies.
It originated entirely because of technological limits and no actual design: Thompson and Ritchie simply ran out of space on their hard drive.
Any "explanation" of the hierarchy is just an arbitrary a posteriori rationalization. The dark truth is, the hierarchy never had a reason to be that way other than disk space (which is not a concern anymore nowadays).

Reminder

Attached: 1531148748378.jpg (800x573, 49K)

System32 contains 64bit software and syswow64 contains 32bit software.

Why?

Unix was a system in the 70s and didn't use a hierarchy like OP described. You have no idea what's going on and should go back to the Reddit.

$ man hier

this
I fucking hate when people try to assign some meaning to this fucking mess of rootfs

your joke did not go unnoticed

>Firefox 3.0
>The White Stripes
>Ancient Macbook
Boomers gonna boom

>le reddit
Inform yourself: lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html and then kill yourself, Eunuchs weenie.
Anyone who defends the Unix file system hierarchy assigning them some arbitrary meaning is under Stockholm syndrome.

>a posteriori

Do you mean "post hoc"? If something is an "a posteriori" judgement then that just means that it is logically derived from experience. In which case your claim that it is "arbitrary" doesn't make sense.

lol how exactly is the linux version simpler? it seems like a bunch of bullshit organization that actually makes little to no actual sense. How hard is it to put boot and system crap in one place and userland in another? jesus.
windows definitely taking the cake in this one

Attached: brainlet1.jpg (1462x2046, 121K)

severely underrated. wtf Jow Forums?

Linux is a kernel.

Because Linux is trash

>f something is an "a posteriori" judgement then that just means that it is logically derived from experience.
Yes, and that's literally what I meant.
All the rationalizations that are usually listed to "explain" the Unix file system hierarchy are quite literally a posteriori justifications, since the hirarchy was _never designed_ to be that way in the first place. Read the email I linked.
Those explanations came _after_ the hierarchy and not before, so yes, they came from experience. And yes they are quite literally arbitrary, because the usual explanations are often conflicting and have nothing to do with the actual reasons the hierarchy is the way it is.
>/usr/bin/ is for X
>/bin/ is for Y
All bullshit. The splits are artificial and exist merely because of historical reasons and technical limits at the time.

Silly boomer, Windows doesn't even have a bin anymore.

Microsoft Windows doesn't have this problem.

Attached: 1550731276751.png (188x127, 4K)

>include
>compiled binaries

>bin
user binaries
>sbin
system binaries
>lib
libraries
>include
source headers
>/*
for local system right after bootup, before other drives are mounted
>/usr/*
for system after all drives (e.g. NFS, OSTree overlays) have been mounted
>/usr/local/*
anything system-wide, but not managed by the main package manager

neat, thank you for this

Plan9:
>/bin

imagine being a dumb nigger

its true.

actually its true more than once because a bunch of the junk in /usr is due to people (prominently, Sun) trying to do diskless-client crap and NFS-mounting any bit of the filesystem that could possibly be made to work while being RO and unchanging between systems. This long after the original Research Unix devs dumped a bunch of shit in /usr because one drive couldn't hold the whole root filesystem.

Also remember that "editable text configuration" and the like are things people came up with long after the fact, when /etc was made it meant "et cetera" and was literally "this is where we keep the junk that doesn't seem to go anywhere else". If you were doing this from scratch today you'd come up with something that looks nothing like the FHS.

Just ignore the zoomer IPad children.

Attached: 1556108235860.jpg (500x334, 42K)

seriously this.
most of these "lmao loonix" fags aren't even serious, they just post this crap to trigger autists.

You are forgetting the other part of the Plan 9 path, "."

Most are kids. No joke none of my cousins younger then 11 know what a executable/binary file is. Only things they know are Google, Google docs, apps, cloud, and sync.

The darkest timeline.

Attached: 1556453370970.jpg (1060x852, 109K)

macOS:
>/Applications
Now that was simple, was it?

But macOS also has
>/bin
>/sbin
>/usr/bin
>/usr/include
>/usr/lib
>/usr/local/bin
>/usr/local/include
>/usr/local/lib
too

also, the most retarded directory has to be
>/usr/local/share
I mean, wth UNIX

Not to mention
>/Users/username/Applications
>/Users/username/Libraries
etc

>realizes Darwin is running underneath with it's directory structure
Just because osx has a job attached to a linked directory doesn't simply solve tge paths for all the underlying libraries, binaries, cache, and settings files. It only gives it a shiny polishing hiding away a rotting corpse of a operating system. Parts of OSX make Debian look like Arch untested.

kek

You're forgetting that Windows also has the clusterfuck abomination known as the Registry.

Then the GNOME faggots thought that that was a really good idea and reimplemented it.

Attached: 2019-05-01-164934_830x429_scrot.png (830x429, 82K)

Clearly the Linux model where you have 142 files in 93 different formats is superior...

>comparing gconf/dconf with registry
dconf is in practice a glorified XML editor for dealing with GSettings. While GSettings clearly is a clusterfuck, it is much more true to the original intentions of the Windows Registry in that it only contains GUI configuration and application settings.

Windows Registry, on the other hand, has grown completely out of control and is used by many applications and even the system itself as a generic key-value store. Some system services even store binary data in it.

I know this is hard for winbabbies to comprehend, but "Everything is a file" does not actually mean that there are actual files backing up those paths. The name is a bit misleading, it should really be "everything is a file descriptor". procfs and sysfs for example do not contain actual files, but contain info about current processes and the system respectively.

meanwhile, on windows, applications are not added to $PATH and can only be run if you know exactly where the executable installed, or you have an accessible .lnk file. Sounds intuitive.

It is, no one uses cmd on windows anyway

Saying that its less bad doesn't make it good. They should have implemented it as dotfiles (or a directory of dotfiles under .config) like everyone else in the *nix world. There's no justification for it being any more complicated than that, or for it needing a specialized application to edit, or for using XML for anything.

>Saying that its less bad doesn't make it good
I agree, but GSettings only apply to GUI applications. Windows Registry is system-wide and even core services rely on it.

>They should have implemented it as dotfiles (or a directory of dotfiles under .config)
Unstructured dot-files are just as much of a clusterfuck if you ask me, I use Xfce and I have to deal with XML configs manually, which isn't exactly pain free.

lol

on kde, I can still edit configuration easily with vi, and sharing configuration between computers is as simple as copy and paste.

Gnome sucks, more news at 11

#rekt
/thread

What Linux has:
>well organized filesystem with a large number of clearly differentiated & defined directories (see: , )

What Winbabbies want (and Windows fails at anyway):
>DUR throw everyding in2 1 foldur :))))))))))) :DDDDD

>>C:\WIN
Hasn't existed since 1999.
>>C:\Windows
Ok.
>>C:\System
Does not exist.
>>C:\System32
Does not exist.
>>C:\SysWOW64
Does not exist.
>>C:\WinSxS
Does not exist.
>>C:\Windows\Temporary Internet Files
Inside C:\Windows
>>C:\Windows\Application Data
Does not exist.
>>C:\Program Files
>>C:\Program Files (x86)
>>C:\ProgramData
Ok.
>>C:\Public
Does not exist.
>>AppData
>>C:\username\AppData\Roaming
>>C:\username\AppData\Local
>>C:\username\AppData\LocalLow
Logical place for storing separate program data and profiles for separate users.
>>C:\username\Local Settings
Does not exist.

Try again retard.

this is a pretty disingenuous post given that most of those directories do exist, he just got the parent directory wrong

>directories inside directories count now
I'd list all the ones for linux, but there's a 50 line limit for posts on Jow Forums, and I'd need 5000.

i think you missed the point of the thread

Actually you did, only 10% of those directores are for executable binaries.

...okay? half of the directories OP listed aren't for executable binaries either

guix has no /usr by default and the only thing in /bin is a helpful symlink from /bin/sh to where bash is in the store. similarly you can enable a symlink for /usr/bin/env to make scripts work more easily. I believe nixos is the same, but I don't have it available to check.

oh and no sbin either

Attached: aaaaaaaaaaa.gif (384x384, 453K)

Unironically, this is what the registry is for. And things aren't automatically added to the path unless you want then to be in linux or you manually include them in a preexisting path.

Yeah its so frustrating where do you fucking change the config. every fucking update they change the location

So what is the one that isn't x86, ARM?

I think we must agree that both are rather retarded and could be improved upon. How is file structure on macos, BSD?

based retard

>So what is the one that isn't x86, ARM?
see:

should i tell him or?

Attached: 55533148_2664249000258058_4380771349480603648_n.jpg (960x876, 58K)

This.
And this can be said of all Unix lore, including the infamous Unix Philosophy.

macOS keeps these for mantain compatibility with its own UNIX innards. In fact, macOS does a good job keeping separated user and system binaries.

I just want to be able to run programs in Windows by typing their name from the commandline/powershell. That's the only advantage of the */bin and $PATH thing *nix gives us.

Shit crashes constantly, too. Also you need to find constant workarounds and other shit to get basic functions to work.

Never again. Windows just werks. I can afford good hardware.

C:\Windows>copy con word.bat
>%PROGRAMFILES%\Office\WinWord.exe %*
1 file(s) copied.

You're welcome.

>having to do that for every program
Ugh, no thanks.

>every program
Doubt that is more than one for your average poorfag freetard.

Yeah, I love the three seconds of disk-churning every time I mistype a command on a Loonix box because it's checking every single executable on the system. Way better than the instant "can't find this command you retard" you get on Windows.

This desu senpai
The only time windows crashes for me is situations that would fuck up linux just as badly. But without the support windows has to fix it.

>CPU drives are fucked
>blue screens with an error code that tells me to update CPU drivers
Nice

>be on linux
>everything explodes
>lol just look at logs kid XD
>lol that CPU isn't supported by that distro you should have planned ahead lol

The one good thing about linux that I can't understand how Microsoft doesn't have an equivalent.

Fucking command line writing tools. Theres no fucking vi or vim on windows, and it sucks.

it's called 'edit'

Attached: edit.png (399x250, 20K)

vim.org/download.php#pc
You're welcome.

>three seconds of disk churning
How fucking old and near death are your poor fucking HDDs?
Also
>using Ubuntu's fucking shitty "did you mean [program] / just type sudo apt install blahblah" shitware
Stop

>there's no vim on windows
Um... vim.org/download.php#pc

>How is file structure on macos, BSD?
They all follow the Single UNIX Specification.

>macOS keeps these for mantain compatibility with its own UNIX innards.
They follow SUS, is what you mean.

>In fact, macOS does a good job keeping separated user and system binaries.
So does Linux. The real advantage with macOS is their application sandboxing, not the directory hierarchy (which is the same as all NIXes)

t. mac and loonixfag.

A situation so terrible there's more than 2 distros dedicated to fixing this clusterfuck

This is the most disingenuous post ITT. You know very well that System, SysWOW64, System32, WinSxS etc exist in C:\Windows and are special folders.

Christ, why do zoomers use "based" as an insult nowadays? You know it's meant to be a compliment, right? You cannot say something like "you're a based idiot". Learn the correct usage of your meme terms before you come on Jow Forums please.

Unless of course you want to call him a retard and at the same time encourage his "retard-like" behaviour because you want this board to turn into shit in which case you're the real shitter.

>staaahp ur using memes wrong
You're a based idiot. Your memes are cancer.

I cannot respond to that unless you make it clear whether you intended that as a compliment or an insult

>I cannot infer meaning from context
Based autist

I think I have to interpret that as a compliment since this time there's no conflict in your words; you're just calling me two good things

Sarcasm must be completely lost on you.

Highly likely to be the case.