Forgot your password?
Cyhist Jun 30 1997 C
Document Actions
========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:39:29 -0700
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: John Henders <jhenders@BOGON.COM>
Subject: Re: File Structure
X-cc: Alan * Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
In-Reply-To: <E0wiiIY-0000pf-00@wu.bogon.com>; from Alan * Sondheim on Sun,
Jun 29, 1997 at 10:36:04PM -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
On Jun 29, Alan * Sondheim <sondheim@PANIX.COM> wrote:
>
>I have recently installed linux; it has, of course, almost the same file directory structure as Unix. I wonder if anyone can write to the origins of the system. Who decided what went into bin, /usr/bin, /etc.? How did the sytem develop? How was it organized early on? Was the structure rela- ted to that of other systems at the time? At this point, the order seems somewhat ad hoc, which is what one would expect as tradition plays a role in directory assignment.
There is a doc called the Linux Filesystem Structure standard that outlines the logic of the current choices.
See http://www.pathname.com/fhs/1.2/fsstnd-toc.html
However, Linux originally had no real standard, other than the choices made by the distribution creator, and even the standard hesitates often to get too specific, The worst example of this I can think of is the structure of the /etc/init directories in varions versions. Most distributions have used as Sys 5 style init for quite some time, but originally SLS and Slackware used bsd style scripts, which were stored in /etc/rc.d. Then the sysvinit package was modified to be even more like Sys 5 init, and for some bizarre reason, Redhat, the current leader in popularity, decided to create the rc1.d, rc2.d directories in the /etc/rc.d directrory instead of directly in /etc.
In general, from what I recall of the early discussion that led to the mailing list that created the standard, the intent was to incorporate all the good ideas from other unixen, and as the emphasis was on good, /opt was never adopted.[1] ;)
1: Actually /opt was later recommended for third party vendor use, so a database or other commercial package could be installed entirely under /opt by the vendor installation scripts. Early releases of the StarOffice package installed in /opt, though later ones now let the installer pick.
--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
______________________________________________________________________
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: John Henders <jhenders@BOGON.COM>
Subject: Re: File Structure
X-cc: Alan * Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
In-Reply-To: <E0wiiIY-0000pf-00@wu.bogon.com>; from Alan * Sondheim on Sun,
Jun 29, 1997 at 10:36:04PM -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
On Jun 29, Alan * Sondheim <sondheim@PANIX.COM> wrote:
>
>I have recently installed linux; it has, of course, almost the same file directory structure as Unix. I wonder if anyone can write to the origins of the system. Who decided what went into bin, /usr/bin, /etc.? How did the sytem develop? How was it organized early on? Was the structure rela- ted to that of other systems at the time? At this point, the order seems somewhat ad hoc, which is what one would expect as tradition plays a role in directory assignment.
There is a doc called the Linux Filesystem Structure standard that outlines the logic of the current choices.
See http://www.pathname.com/fhs/1.2/fsstnd-toc.html
However, Linux originally had no real standard, other than the choices made by the distribution creator, and even the standard hesitates often to get too specific, The worst example of this I can think of is the structure of the /etc/init directories in varions versions. Most distributions have used as Sys 5 style init for quite some time, but originally SLS and Slackware used bsd style scripts, which were stored in /etc/rc.d. Then the sysvinit package was modified to be even more like Sys 5 init, and for some bizarre reason, Redhat, the current leader in popularity, decided to create the rc1.d, rc2.d directories in the /etc/rc.d directrory instead of directly in /etc.
In general, from what I recall of the early discussion that led to the mailing list that created the standard, the intent was to incorporate all the good ideas from other unixen, and as the emphasis was on good, /opt was never adopted.[1] ;)
1: Actually /opt was later recommended for third party vendor use, so a database or other commercial package could be installed entirely under /opt by the vendor installation scripts. Early releases of the StarOffice package installed in /opt, though later ones now let the installer pick.
--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
______________________________________________________________________
