Comments by "Cestarian Inhabitant" (@cestarianinhabitant5898) on "Структура файловой системы Linux!" video.

  1. Yeah, and the outdated structure really shows. why do we have /bin /usr/bin /usr/local/bin /sbin /usr/sbin /usr/local/sbin when we could just have fucking /bin and be done with it? (Same applies to literally everything in /usr/. EVERYTHING. Ok, almost everything, Include still has it's place, but /usr/share? we already have /opt!) The only reason this file system structure is still around is probably because it's a pain in the neck to replace a standard.
    18
  2. Feel like you should have mentioned some things, like how the lib equivalent on windows is C:\Windows\System which can be used to host .dll (dynamically linked library) files which are the primary format windows uses for libraries. On windows those dll files are always either buried somewhere in C:\Windows or shipped with the program that uses them on an individual basis, whereas on Linux, in general, all software refers to the lib/lib32/lib64 directories to find their library files which has some notable pros and cons over the windows method. Also, in /boot you didn't explain what bootloader is, which is the same as 'bootmgr' in windows; it allows the bios to detect that there is an operating system on a hard drive when it attempts to boot it. Also in /boot is the actual linux kernel. Apt was possibly not the best example for a program that requires system-wide configuration. Xorg, Alsa, Pulse or Systemd all would have made somewhat better choices probably. A really quick way to explain the /home folder would have been "this is exactly the same as C:\Users" (because it is, it is exactly the same) Overall a great vid though, definitely favoriting this one and sharing it around. This is one aspect of linux that is a real struggle for superusers from windows to figure out. It remained a head scratcher for me for years until I realized it had a structure of some kind and even after reading up on what's what I still managed to learn new things from this video. I didn't know /run was tmpfs, i ddin't know what /proc was, I didn't know the difference between /bin and /usr/bin, or /lib and /usr/lib... Honestly, if I really think about it.... It seems like an outdated filesystem structure in some regards, the entire /usr directory and it's subdirectories only create needless confusion to be completely honest, especially /usr/local it's like a redundancy within a redundancy for like no reason,´and thanks to that whenever you're looking for something, you have to search in 3 directories instead of just one (program files) on windows, why do we have /usr/share when we already have /opt? After looking deeper into FHS I found out that there's an OS called GoboLinux, it's filesystem structure is beautiful compared to this ugly mess; why hasn't something like that been adopted by now?
    1
  3.  @Doriandotslash  yes yes, but most users don't know what 'libraries' is. If you mention 'dll' however a lot of people would get a chance for an 'aha moment' lol. The video was already 16 minutes, what's another 1?
    1
  4.  @Doriandotslash  Fair enough. I still think points of relation for windows users to latch on-to (e.g. comparing the folders to windows equivalents) is fairly important
    1
  5.  @jeschinstad  Sure, there might be logic to this on servers and whatnot, but why would, for example, ubuntu have this kind of setup?
    1
  6.  @jeschinstad  That's ubuntu server, you're twisting my words. Do you think Windows server is set up in an identical way to windows 10 or something?
    1
  7.  @jeschinstad  Well if that's the case... what's up with all these incompetent administrators? Who the fuck would use ubuntu for a server are they retarded or something? It is literally the worst distro for this...
    1
  8.  @davidbosilj  Couple of reasons, I'll list a few. 1: Canonical is no longer trustworthy, they've been sneaking in unwanted telemetry into ubuntu and you probably don't want that on your server. 2: Ubuntu was entirely designed around being a desktop operating system, while it does have ubuntu server, that comes second to the primary goal. 3: It's less stable than competing server targeted distros (for example Debian and CentOS) As for why I called it the worst, refer to my first point. You don't have to deal with such crap on almost any other distro.
    1