Backwards
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| techiem2 Oct 07, 2011 8:32 PM EDT |
Windows is the unusual structure. *nix is the normal structure. As I understand it, the *nix structure was around LONG before this whole DOS thingy with the drive letters and whatnot (I'm sure the...more senior...members could clarify). And frankly, as someone who started off with DOS and then started using Linux shortly thereafter, I've always found the *nix structure to be much more logical. Also, *nix DOES have partitions, they just aren't labeled as drive letters. |
| tracyanne Oct 07, 2011 8:40 PM EDT |
You are correct the *nix structure is the norm, and was certainly around before Microsoft introduced DOS with the Drive letters. So yes the Drive letter way is the odd way of doing it. When I was learning programming we had Data General mainframes with . for root rather than /, but the directory structure was essentially the same as Linux. |
| cr Oct 07, 2011 9:00 PM EDT |
The drive letters came from CP/M, part of the QDOS inheritance. (Xtree, XtreePro and XtreeGold won't run in DosBox on Linux because DosBox doesn't provide the CP/M-remnant BDOS calls, involving the buffer at 0x80, which Xtree uses for fundamental disk access.) Pity the author didn't include a pointer to the FHS, wherein all such subdirs are defined. I also would have liked to see more in-depth mention of the distinctions between /bin (only everything needed to boot), /usr/bin (where distro-provided user-level pgms go) and /usr/local/bin (where stuff you install yourself goes), and their sbin equivalents, too; I think it warranted mention in an introductory article like that. |
| techiem2 Oct 07, 2011 9:03 PM EDT |
I would have liked it to say Linux or *nix, not just Ubuntu....but...well...we've covered that territory a few million times before. :P |
| cr Oct 07, 2011 9:18 PM EDT |
@techiem2: yup. We eventually got most of the the AOLers from the Endless September civilized (or distracted them with blink tags at geocities); we'll eventually get most of the Ubuntuers to understand. |
| djohnston Oct 07, 2011 10:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:I would have liked it to say Linux or *nix, not just Ubuntu....but...well...we've covered that territory a few million times before. :P I left a post on the blog to that effect. Maybe, just maybe, it will create some small lasting change in perceptions. |
| helios Oct 08, 2011 9:54 AM EDT |
Well, chancing a gross TOS violation, I will introduce the world to my new sigline..... "Ubuntu - turning $1000.00 computers into $75.00 phones since 2011." But seriously folks.....(TM Joe Walsh) The Market's perception IS our reality. If 99 Gazillion people use one OS, which in turn employs its own file system, it doesn't matter what "the norm" is. The "norm" is what everyone knows. Want to see befuddlement? Come with me on an install and watch the eyes glaze over as I try to explain the "home" folder in place of Documents and Settings. Deity forbid I let them wander into the full file structure.....I now just tell them a fairy dies every time they click anything outside of their home folder. It's worked so far.... |
| jdixon Oct 08, 2011 11:11 AM EDT |
> Come with me on an install and watch the eyes glaze over as I try to explain the "home" folder in place of Documents and Settings. Vista and Windows 7 replaced that with a User directory, if I'm remembering correctly. |
| Koriel Oct 08, 2011 11:23 AM EDT |
Yep Win 7 has the Users folder, talk about innovation these guys are way ahead of the curve, maybe by Windows 8 they will let you create a Users partition now that really would be something new! |
| helios Oct 08, 2011 11:46 AM EDT |
Agreed, but the people I serve are still running XP and probably would have until we got them switched over. I am stunned by Microsoft's innovation with Win7....talk about visionaries. |
| patrokov Oct 08, 2011 12:27 PM EDT |
A few years back, I used nlite to change WindowXPs default directories from "Program Files" to usr and from "Documents and Settings" to home. |
| kikinovak Oct 08, 2011 5:12 PM EDT |
The Ubuntu directory structure goes way back to 1967, when Mark Shuttleworth published the first prototype of his new operating system (release codename "Agnostic Anteater"). Two years later, the sheer brilliance of this near perfect layout inspired two hackers named Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan to strip this fantastic OS from its annoying GUI. They developed a text-only fork which they decided to call UNIX. |
| cr Oct 08, 2011 5:30 PM EDT |
So that's how they reduced its memory requirements from 512M to 32k -- by getting rid of Gnome! Amazing! |
| techiem2 Oct 08, 2011 5:35 PM EDT |
Quoting:Vista and Windows 7 replaced that with a User directory, if I'm remembering correctly. Ugh...don't get me started on the nasty mess of directory links and redirects that is the structure of Vista/7..... |
| Grishnakh Oct 08, 2011 6:33 PM EDT |
Several annoying things here:
1) The Windows directory structure is not the same as the DOS directory structure, aside from the drive letters and the stupid backslashes. DOS didn't have a standard directory structure. All it had was the convention that the floppies were A: and B:, the hard drive was C:, and there were a few necessary files in C: (or A: if you booted from that): autoexec.bat, config.sys, and a couple of hidden system files I forget the names of now. That's it. The directories were entirely up to you. Windows directories (Windows, Program Files, etc.) came about mostly with Windows 95, and have been evolving ever since (I believe 7 now has a new place for User directories, for instance, than where XP and before kept them). So they're really quite new. 2) The "Ubuntu directory structure" isn't Ubuntu at all, it's all of Linux. I'm really sick of stupid bloggers acting like Ubuntu is the only Linux, when it's just one of dozens of distros. Ubuntu doesn't do anything different with its directories than Debian, and very little different from Fedora, Suse, etc. |
| gus3 Oct 08, 2011 11:16 PM EDT |
The two hidden files were IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS. |
| hkwint Oct 09, 2011 9:25 AM EDT |
Quoting:I'm sure the...more senior...members could clarify Certainly being around only since '84 I'm no senior, but I can tell you 'our' current hierarchical filesystem was probably invented in '65 by MIT for MULTICS, and therefore predates UNICS / UNIX. Here's the original paper: http://multicians.org/fjcc4.html Especially note paragraph 2.2. Also funny to see "Access Control" already invented in '65. AFAIK, CP/M only arrived in 73/74. |
| cr Oct 09, 2011 11:09 AM EDT |
Quoting: AFAIK, CP/M only arrived in 73/74. And it never had any hierarchical filesystem paths, only user-areas (a convenience in CP/M-80; an annoying necessity in MP/M-80). |
| hkwint Oct 09, 2011 5:13 PM EDT |
Thanks CR, I wasn't there in 73/74 to witness... |
| helios Oct 10, 2011 12:07 AM EDT |
I wasn't there in 73/74 to witness... I was...it wasn't pretty.... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!