this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
712 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

1257 readers
53 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
712
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by sag@lemm.ee to c/linux@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FQQD@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 155 points 2 months ago (8 children)

i always thought /usr stood for "user". Please tell me I'm not the only one

[–] Kuunha@lemmy.eco.br 49 points 2 months ago

Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie created Unix on a PDP-7 in 1969. Well around 1971 they upgraded to a PDP-11 with a pair of RK05 disk packs (1.5 megabytes each) for storage.

When the operating system grew too big to fit on the first RK05 disk pack (their root filesystem) they let it leak into the second one, which is where all the user home directories lived (which is why the mount was called /usr). They replicated all the OS directories under there (/bin, /sbin, /lib, /tmp...) and wrote files to those new directories because their original disk was out of space. When they got a third disk, they mounted it on /home and relocated all the user directories to there so the OS could consume all the space on both disks and grow to THREE WHOLE MEGABYTES. And thereafter /usr is used to store user programs while /home is used to store user data.

source: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html

[–] lascapi@jlai.lu 39 points 2 months ago

You're not the only one 😅 🙋

[–] superkret@feddit.org 27 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I thought it was United System Resources.
And I still don't know what's the point in separating /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin and /usr/sbin.
Also /mnt and /media
Or why it's /root and not /home/root

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 28 points 2 months ago

Mostly historical reasons, /home was often a network mounted directory, but /root must be local.

And only regular users have their home in /home

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And I still don't know what's the point in separating /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin and /usr/sbin.

This goes back to the olden days when disk space was measured in kilo and megabytes. /sbin/ and /usr/sbin have the files needed to start a bare bone Unix/Linux system, so that you could boot from a 800kb floppy and mount all other directories via network or other storage devices as needed.

[–] tromars@feddit.org 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is there a reason to keep this structure other than „we’ve always been doing it like that“/backwards compatibility?

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago

The structure is changing, many distributions already are merging more and more of the duplicated subdirectories in /usr/ with the counterparts in / but it takes time to complete that and at the moment those subdirectories are often still there but as symlinks to be compatible with older software (and sysadmins).

[–] jacobc436@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago

They hold "system binaries" meant for root user. It's not a hard distinction but many if not most Linux fundamentals have their roots in very early computing, mainframes, Bell and Xerox, and this good idea has been carried into the here&now. Not sure about the provenance of this one, but it makes sense. isn't /mnt /media different between distros? These aren't hard and fast rules - some distros choose to keep files elsewhere from the "standard".

/bin and /usr/bin, one is typically a symbolic link to another - they used to be stored on disks of different size, cost, and speed.

https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s16.html

https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/5915/difference-between-bin-and-usr-bin

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think /mnt is where you manually mount a hard drive or other device if you’re just doing it temporarily, and /media has sub folders for stuff like cdrom drives or thumb drives?

[–] superkret@feddit.org 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, but why?
You can mount a hard drive anywhere, and why not put all the cdrom and thumbdrive folders in /mnt, too?

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 7 points 2 months ago

It gets even more complicated nowadays because most DE will mount removable drives somewhere in folders like /run/$USER/

[–] Dalaryous@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

/media is for removable drives. If you mount something there, file managers like Gnome will show you the "eject" or "disconnect" button.

/mnt drives show up as regular network drives without that "eject" functionality.

[–] taaz@biglemmowski.win 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

/sbin are system binaries, eg root only stuff, dunno the rest but I would guess there are some historical reasons for the bin usr/bin separation

[–] superkret@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago

I know the distinction between /bin and /sbin, I just don't know what purpose it serves.

Historically, /bin contained binaries that were needed before /usr was mounted during the boot process (/usr was usually on a networked drive).
Nowadays that's obsolete, and most distros go ahead and merge the directories.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think it originally did under old Unix, it was what /home is nowadays; "Unix System Resources" is a backronym.

[–] bubstance@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You are correct and this can be seen in some of the old AT&T demos from the '80s floating around on YouTube. There is even a chart that specifically labels a directory like /usr/bwk as the user's home.

Plan 9 also uses this old convention; users live under /usr and there is no /home.

[–] gerryflap@feddit.nl 3 points 2 months ago

I was just about to post the same thing. I've been using Linux for almost 10 years. I never really understood the folder layout anyway into this detail. My reasoning always was that /lib was more system-wide and /usr/lib was for stuff installed for me only. That never made sense though, since there is only one /usr and not one for every user. But I never really thought further, I just let it be.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 months ago

Yup same. I always wondered why there was a user folder when we already have home.

[–] kendricklmao8@hachyderm.io 0 points 2 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)