[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.



On 10/03/2021 12:52, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:45:16AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>> On 2021-03-10 at 07:27, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, what does "usr" mean?  I thought it was "user" untill I
>>> took a look inside.  Just asking.
>> I've traditionally understood it to stand for "UNIX Shared Resources",
>> but V.E.R.A. (the Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms) doesn't list that
>> as a definition; the nearest definition it does have which looks like it
>> might be related is "User Service Routines".
>>
>> I can't completely rule out a derivation from "user", but I don't think
>> that's usually considered likely.
> Wikipedia [1] leans towards the derivation from "user":
>
>   usr   The "user file system": originally the directory holding
>         user home directories,[15] but already by the Third Edition
>         of Research Unix, ca. 1973, reused to split the operating
>         system's programs over two disks [...]
>
> ...and as usual they have references to follow, which I'm too lazy to
> do now (as usual ;-)
I think all these shortened names derive from a time when computing
resources were limited. If you're using an 80x25 terminal over at 50
bits per second to a time-shared mainframe, it's more comfortable to
type "/usr" than it is to type "/Programs". Easier to type "cp" than to
type "copy", and so on. It's all fairly arbitrary. Why C:\? Why not
System:\? Convention and history and inertia.
>
> Cheers
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usr
>
>  - t

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: