Re: Why complicated directory structure in Linux

Dave Uhring wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:13:17 -0700, mydejamai wrote:

Why can't some people respond to a question without being derogatory -
what is gained from it?

Since the documentation and answer to your question exist on both your own
Linux system and on the WWW, Usenet is an inappropriate place to display
your laziness.

'Laziness' is good, if it wasn't for 'laziness' we would all
generalists in all areas and specialists in none.

Popping this question into google and Yahoo 'Why complicated directory
structure in Linux' brings up this page
http://www.biznix.org/articles/linuxdirs.html at no 8 on google and 3
on Yahoo. The article doesn't mention 'man hier' nor does the
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html document.

Searching Google Groups puts this thread at the top, thanks to my
'Laziness' a lot more people now know about 'man hier'. You will now be
known as the 'man hier' guy and I will be known as the man who thinks
'Laziness' is good and that it contributes to the greater dissemination
of knowledge.

For your info I first used Linux in the early 90s, when floppy disks
were the only to acquire it and the internet as we know it now didn't
exist.

This is also the first time I have heard of hier, inspite having used
Linux on and off for the past 8 years or so.

From the "early 90s" to 2006 is a good deal longer than "8 years or so".

If you cannot even perform such a simple subtraction perhaps you ought to
continue to use that Microsfot shitware you used to post your question.

I installed Linux around 93/94 played with it for a few weeks and
uninstalled it. It was only in 98 that I installed a Redhat 5.2 server
and even then I never saw much of it because it just performed its job
of serving files without any hassle except with power failures.

If Microsoft is shitware why is Bill Gates the worlds richest man and
in a position to donate more to charity than the combined earnings of
all the pure Linux/Open Source companies?

He simply had a product that served many companies and people when Unix
didn't and Linux didn't exist. Is it a crime for him to have taken
advantage of the opportunity that he saw?

I am not unaware of the problems that result from closed software -
open source is simply to grant software users the ability modify
software sold to them just as with manufactured goods the only
difference that software can be copied easily where as manufactured
goods can't.

But why should enshrining this concept in a license result in the
coming together of a lot of people who share such a dislike for
Microsoft's financial success? I am sure Microsoft wouldn't engender so
much hatred if they were not so financial successful.

IBM, Sun, HP and a host of other companies are also profit making
companies, but the likes of you don't seem to have the hatred of them
you do for Microsoft.

Perhaps Bill Gates should donate a lot of his charity money to the
development of open source software and Linux and that would make a lot
of the likes of you happier.

Linux advocacy isn't done any favours by such attitudes. Look in any of
the Windows oriented forums and you will rarely see any such attitudes
as displayed.

It is also not a crime to learn about as much as is needed to perform a
task, which is how the majority of people approach technology and that
includes a fair number of technical people.

You did *not* ask how to perform a task. You slagged a file hierarchy
which you do not understand, one which is far more organized than that
spaghetti mess of Windows.


I did not slag it, I simply wanted to understand the rationale for
having 3 bin, usr, lib, etc directories. You also forget that Windows
originated in the main as a single user system and a lot of the design
considerations applying to Unix never got to bear on it.

You also top-posted your response, a sure sign of one with no sense
whatever for netiquette.

Do you call needlessly insulting people netiquette?

David it is understandable that you expect a lot of people to exercise
the same level of diligence in learning about machinery that you do,
but peoples choices are limited by the time at their disposal,
especially after they have devoted their spare time to worshipping at
the altar of MTV, Big Brother and Pop Idol.

Your diligence is commendable, but you don't have to slag of others
because of their different approach to technology. Are you quite
certain that in certain aspects of your life you are not as dumb as you
consider some people dumb with respect to Linux, and in those
situations don't you simply ask?

There are those (some of whom are in high places) who consider it a
good thing to ask - 'Ask, and ye shall receive'.

To paraphrase Gordon Gecko,

'Laziness' is good.

'Laziness' built America

God bless America.

God bless David too - it the 'Laziness' of others that financially
empowers people like you if you are willing to exploit it, unless you
consider it immoral to derive financial benefit your personal
qualities.

And again, thanks for your answer, it did help me.

Ciao

.