NonStandard Directory Tree, Wildcards in PATH, etc

Dominic L Hilsbos dhilsboslfs at
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 
Albert Einstein

Linux registered user: 283861
LFS 5.0 ID:12136
Linux-Mandrake 9.2
Windows XP

More information about the lfs-chat mailing list