Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

The default folders could follow a stadanrd organization algorithm (organization being the key word), but thought that would be an advancement, the focus in this thread, at least originally, was about not needing to obey the predefined install folder when desired.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

I dont know what the problem is, you can simlink to almost every standard fs from the default location, that isnt enough for you?

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

Installers like Ubuntu's tend to lead in the direction of one big partition, but no, that's not a "Linux thing". Windows 95 may have killed the old MS-DOS "join" command, but in the *nix world, it is normal to spread portions of the filesystem across multiple partitions, drives, and network volumes.

For instance, I tend to break at least /boot, /var, /var/tmp, /tmp, /usr, /usr/local, /opt, /home, and swap away from root. For each I can select a filesystem type appropriate to the data it will hold, and I don't need to worry that, say, a log file suddenly growing massively large will take down my machine. Using a logical volume manager makes it easy to expand a given filesystem when more space is needed, and drives may be added as needed.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

I would rather not have to jump thru hoops or wait till after the installation already happened in order to have a program be installed in different folders than the default; like i said early in this thread, similarly to how it is with most install process with Windows

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

I find it amusing that someone whose sum total experience with programming is with Visual Basic, is lecturing us on how bad the Linux file system layout is, and asking why can't it be more like Windows.

At least, that's where I see this as going. :confused:

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

I think someone (either me or some of you, or perhaps both) is getting things backwards here....

I always thought that using a single partition for the whole physical hard disk, was a Windows thing, and using lots of partitions was a Linux thing; but i could swear someone in this thread said the opposite was what was widely accepted as the norm.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

But we have said many many times here that whole structure of modular linux is what it is. You are hitting your head to wall here :)

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

It was probably me and what I meant was that quite many people windows machines what I have used have had C/D/E etc. DRIVE letters and folder structure is bit like your bookshelf in library. When it comes Linux FS it´s something that at least to me I can't put in real physical world. It´s just totally something different.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

That's assuming you know which keys a particular program is using. With *nix programs it's mostly obvious since config file is similarly to program name and mostly it's just 1 file or 1 directory.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

lol, amusing take on the situation....


What i'm complaining about (and trying to understand why it could be considered better) are two things:

• Lack of choice of destination folders when installing programs thru normal means.
  
  and
  
  
• Dumping executables all in a single folder, config files all in another single folder etc, instead of developing the folder tree keeping things more organized.