Re: [arch-general] lib -> usr/lib

[Ian Fleming]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:30:06PM -0400, brainwor...@lavabit.com wrote:
> >> If everything is to end up in /usr, then I'd argue that this makes /usr
> >> superfluous. If merging is to be done, then IMO things should be moved
> >> out
> >> of /usr, not moved in.
> >
> > well no
> > the point is to have a single top-level directory for a single purpose.
> >
> > so distribution provided files will go to /usr, local-system
> > configuration in /etc, /run is for runtime state, /var is the
> > local-system state (the non-ephemeral state).
> 
> My variant is:
> 
> /lib -> /usr/lib
> /bin -> /usr/bin
> /sbin -> /usr/bin
> 
> After that rename:
> /usr to /system
> /etc to /config
> /dev to /device
> 
> Why not using clear (and not so short) names to indicate real purpose!
>

Things are tried and true... But things have changed alot in recent years. 

For example network/internet bandwidth or the size and speed of storage medium.

AND re-naming things is not keeping it simple... or is it? No its not..

So... =)

Re: [arch-general] lib -> usr/lib

[Ian Fleming]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 09:19:59AM +0800, Ken CC wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 09:48:00PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > I laugh away this trouble.
> > Is there any information about the advantages of lib -> usr/lib?
> 
> anyone likes to answer this question?
> 
> 
> 
> -ken

I beleive its a question of

How is the filesytem structure and its distributed nature/capabilities relevant 
today

 i.e the need for /bin or /lib even.