Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 20:06:54 +0200 From: mouss <usebsd@free.fr> To: "Andresen,Jason R." <jandrese@mitre.org>, j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: unix filesystem structure Message-ID: <4.3.0.20000809195659.00cecf00@pop.free.fr> In-Reply-To: <3990690D.F62B9EFD@mitre.org> References: <20000808202239.A21332@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'd add another one: data may be shared between different operating systems. so, just mount some /path/to/web/site/ on many servers, and different http binaries will serve them. This won't be the case if the http server used its own directory. in some way, Unix is an OS served by apps (app files get copied in directries organized for the OS happiness), while windows is an OS that serves the apps (apps get their dirs, and the system manages this using the registry. so when the latter is corrupted, you can go for an install party, provided you kept a list of your software on paper...). At 16:09 08/08/00 -0400, Andresen,Jason R. wrote: >j mckitrick wrote: > > > > is there any advantage to the unix filesystem structure, keeping all > > binaries together, all docs together, all config files together, etc, > rather > > than the modern method of keeping all the parts of a given application > > together? > >Lets count the ways: >1. Managable path lengths. When you make new directory trees for >everything you have to add a new path argument for each new binary you >install, and the path quickly grows to unmanageable lengths. The other >option is to simply not have the applictions in the path, but then it is >very difficult to pipe data around as you always have to specify the >full path to every application (extremly tedius). >2. Simplicity: you usually know where to look for a certain type of >file, be it a non-critcal binary that came with the system (/usr/bin) or >a non-X library that you installed yourself (/usr/local/lib), etc... >3. Promotes sharing of libraries, you only need to have one version of >libXpm installed for the multitude of applications that use it. >Although you can do this in Windows as well, programmers have a tendancy >to stick the dlls in the same directory as the appliction, where they >can't be used by other programs. >4. Increased consistancy: most applications follow the basic directory >structure, so you know where stuff will be installed, unlike Windows >where the programmers make up new directory structures for everything >they write. Commercial applications are the worst, where you frequently >enter the main directory only to see a dozen subdirectories with cryptic >names and no sign of an executable anywhere. Thankfully under Windows, >most people don't notice this because they only use the start menu. > >There are other reasons as well, but I think these should be enough. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.0.20000809195659.00cecf00>