Why does Linux (or your distro's package manager) just scatter all of your programs across multiple folders...

Why does Linux (or your distro's package manager) just scatter all of your programs across multiple folders? Why not just have one folder named /programs? Is there a way to achieve this in GNU/Linux?

Other urls found in this thread:

linux.com/learn/intro-to-linux/2017/6/gobolinux-redefines-linux-filesystem-hierarchy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_directory_structure
gobolinux.org/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

linux.com/learn/intro-to-linux/2017/6/gobolinux-redefines-linux-filesystem-hierarchy

/bin
Nigger

Neat, I didn't know this existed.

Why does it matter if you're using a package manager?

/lib
/bin
/sbin
/usr/bin
/usr/sbin
/usr/share
/usr/include
/usr/local/bin
/usr/local/sbin
/usr/local/share
/usr/local/include

I guess it doesn't, but it's very disorganized, which bothers me.

akarin

Great idea OP, while we are at it why do we even need folders anymore.
just drop everything onto the root of the filesystem think of all the inodes you would save
by not having a filesystem hierarchy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_directory_structure

Everything is sorted in detail. Why is windows so scattered where the documentation for programs is in subfolders of 10 different folders instead of one central place?

There’s no hierarchy when it comes to installing software. It’s all over the place. You have no idea where it ends up.

In my experience Linux tends to be more organized. Instead of each program sticking configuration files in random places and having their own copy of every library they need and having documentation scattered within the program directory, everything goes in its place and you don't end up with seven copies of the same library on your drive.

>each program sticking configuration files in random places
except this happens in linux too because fucknuggets can't just stick to ~/.config/

this is the real complaint

not programs installing wherever the fuck they want, that's what the package manager is for

but FUCK ME if they can't stop littering my home directory with their configuration files

Windows started this fucking bullshit with "My Documents" containing Appdata.

Wincucks have to constantly clear this hidden folder because it's also where programs shove their "temporary" files which somehow fail to delete after use.

It could be worse.

Yes, there are shifty people in the world who do not conform to standards set out before they came along when they develop their programs, and they make things shit for the rest of us, and I totally support burning their houses to the ground but ideally what I described earlier is how things should work.

*shitty
Fucking autocorrect

>they fell for the multiuser meme

UNIX was mistake.

Bring 3.11 back.

But user, what are you going to do when you have a family and your kid wants to play with your computer? Surely you wouldnt want them finding all your chinese cartoon pornography.

Face it goy, you need multiuser systems.

>sharing a PC
I'm not a povvo.

There's literally 4 PCs for everyone in my house right now.

One person - one computer.

nooooo!

Maybe two, laptops count.

>tfw we'll never have a proper single user os again without all this multiuser bullshit cluttering up the directory structure

>Is there a way to achieve this in GNU/Linux?

When I was a linux user slackware was very dogmatic about where the packages, and everything else, went. I doubt that's changed. Other distros throw binaries around willy nilly? I would not approve.

>but it's very disorganized

It's highly organized, what are you talking about?

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

because shared resources
each type of resource goes in a common location, making it accessible to other things
you can query your package manager to find out where a packages' files are

and if you really want a "/programs" folder, try gobolinux.org/

>each type of resource goes in a common location, making it accessible to other things
But you could still have things search for shit like:
/libraries/niggerlib/lib

increasing the search scope from none (one specific folder is used for that resource) to a few (resource is sourced from PATH) to many? (resource is blindly searched for in every other package's "program" folder)
that could be a significant performance hit for something that just arguably looks nicer

Why does it have to scan everything in PATH, though?
Where does the idea that libraries and execs needs to share PATH even come from?

>resource is blindly searched for in every other package's "program" folder
No need for that. You could have it only search the binary/library subdirs.

Say, you want niggerlib.so, so you don't look in /lib/, /usr/lib/, /usr/local/lib, but look for niggerlib in /packages/, then through /packages/niggerlib/lib/
Or something like that.

It is already laid out in a sensible manner. ~/.config/ for user settings
/etc for default settings
/usr for resources
/opt for proprietary software you want to contain the way OP states.

I sure there are some distros with this kind of organization. In my opinion it's useless because if your package manager is god tier, everything is deleted when you uninstall a package.
I'm more upset of log files randomly created in my home folder or config files not in ~./config

>/usr for resources
Define resources.
/usr is a mistake. It was the home directory before /home was, so people put their own users' shit in there: binaries, libraries, etc. Somehow it turned into an ill-defined separation from the system's stuff. Hopefully we can get rid of it soon and just put everything straight in /bin, /lib, /share and /src.

But still there will be programs that I need and that can't be installed through package manager, right?

By the way, how does MacOS compare to this?

I've seen that distro a dozen times, and it's still as dumb as the first day I saw it. If you install it, you get a prericed awesomewm that somehow manages to look unbearably ugly but is also impractical. Any sane, professional project would have just used a DE or let the user decide what to install. What a bunch of idiots.

Yes there is, you fucking idiot.

>I guess it doesn't, but it's very disorganized, which bothers me.
No, it's the exact opposite of disorganized. Disorganized would be something retarded like just dumping everything into a single folder like you seem to want. There is a folder for shared libraries, a folder for binaries, a folder for configuration files, a folder for documentation, etc...

Do you even know what "organized" means?

>It’s all over the place. You have no idea where it ends up
Maybe that's true if you are ignorant and have no understanding of what the different folders are for. However, for anyone who isn't an ignoramous, it is incredibly easy to know ahead of time where the different parts of the package will be installed.

TempleOS solves this problem elegantly

>/bin
So that's where the recycle bin folder is? Thanks gonna empty it.