This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Filesystem Hierarchy Standard article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
|
|
I'm removing the sentence about Plan 9, because not only is FHS not a Plan 9 thing, but it also didn't _influence_ Plan 9's names for system folders. Plan 9 existed before FHS. Also, the paragraph, which goes
makes it sound like Plan 9 has /net _in addition_ to all that /sys registry stuff, which it doesn't.
This particular mention of Plan 9 in this article makes no sense whatsoever. It might however make sense in Unix directory structure.
Stuart M ( talk) 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The item on /usr/local says "for local data, specific to this host" and the attached footnote (currently 12) expands with "historically and strictly according to the standard, /usr/local/ is for data that must be stored on the local host (as opposed to /usr/, which may be mounted across a network)." "Historically" is as it may be but looking at the standard I can see nothing that that supports the "local host" assertion. Instead it says "[it] may be used for programs and data that are shareable amongst a group of hosts", which would seem to imply exactly the opposite. The unfortunate word "local" seems no to be specifically defined. I will thus plan reword this section unless someone can show me how I'm reading this wrong ... 192.75.165.180 ( talk) 20:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have /never/ heard etc pronounced as et-see. This is after 10 years working with Linux, numerous workshops and classes. I have heard it pronounced as E-T-C and sometimes as etcetera. Not sure what wiki policy is on pronunciation guides (and much too lazy to look it up), but I have found that uncited pronunciations are usually reflecting the bias of a particular community of speakers, and usually there is more than one accepted pronunciation. Tagged as citation needed, but probably worth deleting in the absence of a citation 60.240.207.146 ( talk) 00:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
"/var/tmp/", which is linked to on this page, redirects to this (same) page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.242.240.81 ( talk) 22:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The current release of LSB appears to be 4.1 (see https://www.linuxbase.org/lsb-cert/productdir.php?by_lsb), and 5.0 is forthcoming (see http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb). Incidentally, Sun used it for the Java Desktop System. Oracle, of course, uses it. TEDickey ( talk) 18:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I pointed to a few sources; your reply provides no sources. No facts from you have been forthcoming TEDickey ( talk) 23:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The first link above cites both. Before spewing accusations, you might try reading the suggested link. I found more, but kept my response brief and to the point. You might also try keeping to the point. TEDickey ( talk) 09:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The Linux FHS is based on a standard agreed on by UNIX vendors (under Sun leadership) around 1988
Correct, in that some of the directories, such as /var and /usr/share, in the FHS originated in that standard, although I don't currently have any sources for it. At least one motivation for the design was to split "stuff that's specific to a machine" and "stuff that could be stored on a file server and be mounted read-only on other machines"; that was done as part of Sun changing the way they handled diskless workstations to use only NFS, without the old "ND" (network disk) protocol, with the server offering per-machine directories to mount for the first set of stuff and both universal and per-instruction-set stuff to mount for the second set of stuff. ("/usr/share" was for stuff that could be used regardless of the client's instruction set, e.g. most text files, and binary files in a byte-order-etc.-independent format.) See, for example, pages 19-21 and Appendix A of
Installing the SunOS 4.0.3 (unfortunately Bitsavers doesn't have the 4.0 installation manual, which
Release 4.0 Change Notes for the Sun Workstation says has that information as well).
But, again, that needs sources, not just memories from 35 years ago. The installation document there should help, although what I'd also like would be the original Sun proposal that I remember from when I was in the OS group there, and information about other vendors atoption of it.
The FHS probably picked up stuff from what existing UN*Xes were doing, including the Sun changes.
as it re-introduced the long outdated /usr/local
Because, much though Sun might have wanted to promote /opt, a lot of free software, at least, continued to install in /usr/local, so, "outdated" though it might have been, it wasn't going away and didn't go away. Guy Harris ( talk) 22:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Many of the topics discussed in the FHS Compliance section (such as /run and /sys) have been adopted by FHS 3.0. Need to update this article to reflect those changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdenceman ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I concurr, for instance /etc/opt is not part of the 3.0 revision, it had been proposed and rejected around version 2 - it is awkward to have it outdated - wikipedia is a reference over source documentation for my junior engineers ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.158.145.173 ( talk) 15:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The positions of the BSDs:
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2011-May/011444.html
https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2011/05/10/msg005051.html
-- Darktrym ( talk) 16:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
If /mnt is for temporary file systems and /media for removable disks, where is the mount point for permanent hard disks, like a NTFS disk? J-m.s ( talk) 09:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Same question like for database files for an application shared among several groups of users, but not all users of the system. DGerman ( talk) 17:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I have been in business since the beginning of this electronic transmission 41.116.107.22 ( talk) 13:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Since the entries in Directory represent fully qualified directories, it seems irritating to me to additionally indent them. I've seen an indented-only version of similar information, but it doesn't seem very accessible because of the different height of the cells in the Description column. I would therefore suggest removing the indentation in this article. Please let me know what you think of this. Thanks -- Uncopy ( talk) 14:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Filesystem Hierarchy Standard article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
|
|
I'm removing the sentence about Plan 9, because not only is FHS not a Plan 9 thing, but it also didn't _influence_ Plan 9's names for system folders. Plan 9 existed before FHS. Also, the paragraph, which goes
makes it sound like Plan 9 has /net _in addition_ to all that /sys registry stuff, which it doesn't.
This particular mention of Plan 9 in this article makes no sense whatsoever. It might however make sense in Unix directory structure.
Stuart M ( talk) 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The item on /usr/local says "for local data, specific to this host" and the attached footnote (currently 12) expands with "historically and strictly according to the standard, /usr/local/ is for data that must be stored on the local host (as opposed to /usr/, which may be mounted across a network)." "Historically" is as it may be but looking at the standard I can see nothing that that supports the "local host" assertion. Instead it says "[it] may be used for programs and data that are shareable amongst a group of hosts", which would seem to imply exactly the opposite. The unfortunate word "local" seems no to be specifically defined. I will thus plan reword this section unless someone can show me how I'm reading this wrong ... 192.75.165.180 ( talk) 20:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have /never/ heard etc pronounced as et-see. This is after 10 years working with Linux, numerous workshops and classes. I have heard it pronounced as E-T-C and sometimes as etcetera. Not sure what wiki policy is on pronunciation guides (and much too lazy to look it up), but I have found that uncited pronunciations are usually reflecting the bias of a particular community of speakers, and usually there is more than one accepted pronunciation. Tagged as citation needed, but probably worth deleting in the absence of a citation 60.240.207.146 ( talk) 00:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
"/var/tmp/", which is linked to on this page, redirects to this (same) page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.242.240.81 ( talk) 22:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The current release of LSB appears to be 4.1 (see https://www.linuxbase.org/lsb-cert/productdir.php?by_lsb), and 5.0 is forthcoming (see http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb). Incidentally, Sun used it for the Java Desktop System. Oracle, of course, uses it. TEDickey ( talk) 18:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I pointed to a few sources; your reply provides no sources. No facts from you have been forthcoming TEDickey ( talk) 23:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The first link above cites both. Before spewing accusations, you might try reading the suggested link. I found more, but kept my response brief and to the point. You might also try keeping to the point. TEDickey ( talk) 09:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The Linux FHS is based on a standard agreed on by UNIX vendors (under Sun leadership) around 1988
Correct, in that some of the directories, such as /var and /usr/share, in the FHS originated in that standard, although I don't currently have any sources for it. At least one motivation for the design was to split "stuff that's specific to a machine" and "stuff that could be stored on a file server and be mounted read-only on other machines"; that was done as part of Sun changing the way they handled diskless workstations to use only NFS, without the old "ND" (network disk) protocol, with the server offering per-machine directories to mount for the first set of stuff and both universal and per-instruction-set stuff to mount for the second set of stuff. ("/usr/share" was for stuff that could be used regardless of the client's instruction set, e.g. most text files, and binary files in a byte-order-etc.-independent format.) See, for example, pages 19-21 and Appendix A of
Installing the SunOS 4.0.3 (unfortunately Bitsavers doesn't have the 4.0 installation manual, which
Release 4.0 Change Notes for the Sun Workstation says has that information as well).
But, again, that needs sources, not just memories from 35 years ago. The installation document there should help, although what I'd also like would be the original Sun proposal that I remember from when I was in the OS group there, and information about other vendors atoption of it.
The FHS probably picked up stuff from what existing UN*Xes were doing, including the Sun changes.
as it re-introduced the long outdated /usr/local
Because, much though Sun might have wanted to promote /opt, a lot of free software, at least, continued to install in /usr/local, so, "outdated" though it might have been, it wasn't going away and didn't go away. Guy Harris ( talk) 22:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Many of the topics discussed in the FHS Compliance section (such as /run and /sys) have been adopted by FHS 3.0. Need to update this article to reflect those changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdenceman ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I concurr, for instance /etc/opt is not part of the 3.0 revision, it had been proposed and rejected around version 2 - it is awkward to have it outdated - wikipedia is a reference over source documentation for my junior engineers ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.158.145.173 ( talk) 15:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The positions of the BSDs:
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2011-May/011444.html
https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2011/05/10/msg005051.html
-- Darktrym ( talk) 16:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
If /mnt is for temporary file systems and /media for removable disks, where is the mount point for permanent hard disks, like a NTFS disk? J-m.s ( talk) 09:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Same question like for database files for an application shared among several groups of users, but not all users of the system. DGerman ( talk) 17:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I have been in business since the beginning of this electronic transmission 41.116.107.22 ( talk) 13:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Since the entries in Directory represent fully qualified directories, it seems irritating to me to additionally indent them. I've seen an indented-only version of similar information, but it doesn't seem very accessible because of the different height of the cells in the Description column. I would therefore suggest removing the indentation in this article. Please let me know what you think of this. Thanks -- Uncopy ( talk) 14:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)