Why didn't windows adopt an objectively superior unix filesystem structure?
Why didn't windows adopt an objectively superior unix filesystem structure?
Adrian Sanders
Other urls found in this thread:
sharenet.club
sharenet.club
sharenet.club
sharenet.club
sharenet.club
twitter.com
Charles Nguyen
Samuel Ortiz
Because trying to change something as fundamental woild 100% break this pajeetware
Logan Miller
The unix filesystem is a complete mess.
Eli Rodriguez
Why does /etc/hosts exist in Windows? Why do people still use cuck licenses?
Hunter Baker
>/bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin
Wow, such great design. I've always wished my PC had 4 copies of the same folder because some random computer half a century ago ran out of disk space.
Bentley Morris
Everything is ordered and structured unline C: D: F: Program Files Program Files x860AppData configs in Documents and so on and so forth.
Dominic Brown
Unix filesystem is objectively inferior. /usr was made because their PDP-11 ran out of disk space so they made a fake "user" directory called bin instead of fixing it so you could put programs anywhere you want. This is because the shell had no environment variables or path yet so they had to hardcode the directories to search. Everything in Unix is retarded like this. Having single directories for all programs and libraries so you have to avoid two things having the same name instead of keeping each application in its own directory like Windows is also retarded.
Cameron Butler
lol
lmao even
Michael Johnson
>sbin and bin is the same
Retard. /sbin is for system binaries not used by the user. /bin is for essential binaries like the login shell. /usr is for the rest.
Julian Nguyen
lmaoing at freetards
David Hall
Despite that windows programs still litter all over your drive.
Aiden James
All of theses are symbolic links to /usr/bin in any modern Linux distribution
>uses Windows
>complains about something done to ensure backward compatibility
My sides
Jackson Mitchell
read make it a standard then you fucking retard
>t. 12 iq
Jayden Gomez
It doesn't work, trust me
Kayden Gray
>dotfiles in home
>dot'folders' in home
>~/.config folder which no one uses
>program installs in /usr/local or share
>program installs in /lib and drops exe in /bin
>program installs in /opt
indeed i appreciate modern day linux and its simplistic folder structure
Nolan Turner
Better than having the files to a single application spread over multiple directories.
Adrian King
is this a file system or the periodic table lmao
Liam Lopez
Are you joking? You have a program in Program Files, a config or some kind of cache in user/appdata, some configs in user/documents, and some registry parameters.
And you don't have a package manager to tidy everything up if you uninstall it. Lol.
Brayden Collins
Gavin Allen
>talks about filesystem
>posts filesystem hierarchy
>asks dumb question
Is this a shitty bait thread or what?
Hudson Reed
>>uses Windows
I don't. I use linux. Doesn't mean I can't dislike the stupid bullshit like dot files and redundant copies of folders.
Easton Davis
Both oses do it horribly wrong honestly. Something like GoboLinux + a redesigned version of Windows' registry for configuration would be ideal.
Asher Butler
At least on windows the program itself stays in its own directory. On linux, the program is often split into multiple pieces, with some exe files in bin, other bits in lib, and various other bits and pieces in share
On windows:
program files: the program itself
appdata\roaming: per using config
appdata\local: per computer config
registry: I grant you this is a mess
Daniel Barnes
>announcing a report
bye bye user-kun
Joseph Clark
windows doesn't need unix's insane convoluted hierarchy, it already has one
Connor Jackson
It's a mess, and it's still a million times better than Windows. I don't know how the fuck anybody can argue that the catastrophic mess on Windows is superior.