Link Details

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you should bash it.

1. The directory structure isn't.
There is a valid reason for every folder in a *nix directory structure. It makes much more sense than windows.

2. It's consistent in things that users don't want to see, and inconsistent in things that they do.
Linux is about choice. If it only worked one way, it would be windows. Users have a choice between which window manager they want to use. There is not one that is forced down their throat, like in windows, or mac.

The gui front ends are different because they are not part of the Linux kernel. This is where the choice part comes in. If you understand Linux, you don't need any gui front ends. You can configure things on the command line.

3. It is bound to its legacy.
Ha! Bound to the BSOD is more of a kick in the pants if you ask me.

I'm not wasting any more time on someone as disillusioned as you are.

Take a look at this
http://www.badvista.org

Wow, Eric. What an insightful comment. I feel so much more edumacated now, thank you.

I actually thought he responded adequately to your ridiculous claims.

I won't vote this up cause Jon Davis isn't knowledgeable about Macintosh - no cred for that. But I do give him props for point 1.

So eric32 why don't you splain it to us? What are the specific reasons for the various /etc/usr/home folders? Linux should learn from OS X.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard

Hey thanks! I'll forward this link to my mom and quiz her tonight.

While u r @ it, could you export any windows registry and have your mom study that for awhile?

You don't get it. I hate the disgusting spaghetti structure of the Windows registry far more than I hate the Linux file system structure. It doesn't change the fact that I hate the Linux file system structure.

My mom doesn't need to see the Windows registry, but to do anything useful she has to poke around in the file system, at *least* in /home/

The fact that you keep bashing the directory structure is becoming more and more of a joke to me. You obviously don't get it, and probably never will.

ooo, thanks. That link pointed me to something that looks far more interesting!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoboLinux

Too bad, Gobo Linux uses Mixed Case. In a case-sensitive environment, that is as bad as var / usr / etc.

I personally understand Linux better than I do Vista these days. I think the Vista UI was a step backwards. GNOME is simple, unintrusive, and just lets me get my work done.

And as far as being bound to legacy constraints? Please... Vista is STILL bound to the legacy constraints of DOS as well. It still relies on drive lettering and such, and on a file system structure that is basically inferior to UNIX, where everything is a directory and so on, even if it is located on a remote system.

murban, first of all, I'm not rooting for Vista--I do use it at home, and I think it's a fine operating system, as is OS X, as Linux could have been as far as I am concerned were it not for so many flaws--so much as rather I acknowledge is success in the market and acknoledge a few areas where Vista does something good. Among them are the Aero subsytem (not necessarily the Aero special effects, although those are nice, too, I'm talking about the tech) and the current file structure which IMO is a pretty sensible structure. However, Vista does have issues, no doubt, most notably Microsoft's abuse of the registry (which itself is a good invention, just that it's used completely improperly).

Second, there aren't any DOS constraints in Vista. Vista is not built on DOS, it's built on the "legacy" of the NT kernel which hasn't slowed anyone down. The drive lettering isn't really a constraint so much as a nearly optional Windows behavior that works fine for its users and is easier to use than arbitrary names, but you can map a partition to any directory rather than a drive letter. Some the 8.3 named files are still in there due to originating with Windows 95 (which *was* built on DOS but also supported Win32 which the NT kernel also supported), but they don't HAVE to do that anymore, and indeed for new bits they don't typically bother unless it's convenient. For instance, all the newer .NET files are named more like 7.6.8.4.5 rather than 8.3, spelling out the base namespace of the .NET assembly.

"...the NT kernel which hasn't slowed anyone down"

HA!