NonStandard Directory Tree, Wildcards in PATH, etc
Dominic L Hilsbos
dhilsboslfs at sbcglobal.net
Fri Aug 6 18:59:00 PDT 2004
I remember that, when I first got into Linux, one of the things that
took me the longest to get ussed to was the standard directory tree
structure. So the question is how difficult would it be to build a
system ussing a more descriptive and, well, Windows like.
Some of the things I'd like to do:
Put all system files under /Linux/, including but not limited to boot,
config, library (or lib), bin, log, maybe init also. /Linux/ would be
owned by user/group system:system (1:1), thus allowing someone in the
system group to make system wide changes.
Put all non-system programs in their own folder under /Programs/ (for
instance samba would be in /Programs/Samba/. This would be owned by
program:program (2:2). This would allow anyone in the program group to
install programs for the machine.
I like the existing layout of /home/ that I'd keep as would I keep /root/.
The thing is, I'd prefere to keep program specific libraries in a
subdirectory of the programs directory (i.e. /Programs/*/lib/) how would
I setup ln to access these libraries, yet not compromise seurity?
Also how would I setup the path to allow ussers to use the programs in
/Programs/*/? Would it be necessary? Putting an absolute pathname in
an icon (launcher) in the menu (or on the desktop) for those programs in
/Programs/... would solve that problem.
The pathname for root would have to not include references to /Programs/
so that security is maintained.
I realize that most of this goes against everything that most linux
users are ussed to, however I'd realy like to see expanded personal use
of Linux, and I believe that this might help expand the Linux user base.
Dominic L Hilsbos
"Peace can not be kept by force. It can only be achieved through
Linux registered user: 283861 http://counter.li.org/
LFS 5.0 ID:12136 http://linuxfromscratch.org/cgi-bin/lfscounter.cgi
More information about the lfs-chat