Introducing /run [LWN.net]

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 21:03 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (11 responses)

It's because it's /var/run, only moved to the root filesystem. Why was that not called 'runtime'? Ask the ancient Unix gurus, but since they were plainly obsessed with saving individual characters come what may (e.g. 'creat()') I think the answer can be predicted in advance.

Machines were small in those days. 'runtime' uses four more bytes than 'run'. It may be that simple.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 21:43 UTC (Wed) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (5 responses)

Your less likely to typo with three letters then with 7.

Try typing /etc /etc /etc /etc as fast as you can.
Now try it again with /et_cetera :)

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 22:16 UTC (Wed) by andrel (guest, #5166) [Link] (3 responses)

It's the same three keystrokes either way: /,e,tab

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 22:44 UTC (Wed) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (2 responses)

You are obviously not using the same shell that people did when they came up with the names.

Anyways... /runtime is no more illustrative of the purpose of the directory then /run.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 2:44 UTC (Thu) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link]

The term 'runtime' appears regularly as the key word in the explanation of this directory's purpose.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 21:39 UTC (Thu) by jond (subscriber, #37669) [Link]

Quite, and "because it was called /var/run before" does not strike me as a good reason to keep doing it. Or we wouldn't be tinkering with the contents of / in the first place :-) This could be a golden opportunity to introduce some meaningful names into the filesystem, in the era of tab-completion.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 2:32 UTC (Thu) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link]

I tried it before asking, and actually, for run vs runtime, I find little difference, even without tab completion.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 22:08 UTC (Wed) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (1 responses)

Four bytes have little to do with it; /runtime would take four extra *keystrokes*. (Though with modern completion systems, you can type either as /ru[tab] in many cases.)

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 23:51 UTC (Wed) by nicooo (guest, #69134) [Link]

/var/run
/runtime

:)

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 19:49 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] (2 responses)

Re creat(2), I head a story sometime that the length of identifiers in the assembler was limited to 6, and that the compiler added a '_' in front of user identifiers to distiguish them from all sort of internal names used by the compiler and assembler (that was still that way with the C compiler in BSD 4.2 I used around 1985...), thus _creat at 6 characters, user-visible name creat with 5.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 20:19 UTC (Thu) by dark (guest, #8483) [Link]

The length limit of 6 leaves just enough space for a colon and a tab, and then the code after the label aligns with all the other code.

I don't know if that's the actual reason :)

Introducing /run

Posted Apr 1, 2011 17:32 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Yes indeed. Levine mentions this in _Linkers and Loaders_, a book full of gold dust about ancient systems (and a lot of stuff applicable to new ones too).

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 21:09 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (3 responses)

Unix is like math. Despite what your programming teacher may have taught you, shorter names are actually easier to grok for most things, variables and directories included. Ever wonder why algebra and physics is still taught using x, y, v, s and not unknownNumber, mySpeed, distance... Because it is easier to read, not just to type or write.

The root directories are common directories that everyone familiar with unix should know, these are not obscure directories that you see once while investigating a deep application sub directory and wonder what it is. It makes sense to make the common easier for the experienced users and not the newcomers. Newcomers will ask once and then remember, in the mean time, the rest of us can benefit from short simple directory listings and paths. This is not elitism, this is simply better usability.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 22:59 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (2 responses)

+1

I hate the occasional times I have to use a Windoze box and deal with monstrosities like C:\Program Files\Some Stupid Vendor Name\Some Huge Directory Name

And in my (mercifully) brief encounter with Mac OS X, I was similarly disgusted by its reworking of the standard UNIX directory layout into a verbose user-friendly [sic] horror.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 6:04 UTC (Thu) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link] (1 responses)

In MS Windows, I end up using "C:\progra~1\" in my paths more often than I'd like to admit to.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 16:40 UTC (Thu) by zlynx (guest, #2285) [Link]

You don't open up cmd and run fsutil immediately after a fresh Windows install and speed tweak all the options?

You've got to make sure TRIM is on and 8.3 names are off and last-accessed is off and you might like to tweak the memory buffers if you've got gobs of RAM.

With 8.3 names off, C:\program~1 fails to work, but at least NT stops reminding me of DOS.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 21:29 UTC (Wed) by janfrode (subscriber, #244) [Link] (1 responses)

The first thing that popped to mind when I saw the announcement from Lennart was that this would be something like daemontools /service directory. I.e. put something there and it will be started/superviced.

/runtime would have been much clearer.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 22:06 UTC (Wed) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]

I would have preferred "/bikeshed" myself, but the secret cabal made the behind-closed-doors decision without asking me so I didn't get a say

(and just incase the irony is lost on anyone... I'm very glad that decision was just made and implemented without fuss, and I don't care what the name is as long as it doesn't start with '.').

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 21:38 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link] (8 responses)

If you're looking at the root directory or changing stuff in it, you are assumed to know what you're doing.

If you're using a novice-friendly environment like Ubuntu, Android, a set-top box, Meego, or whatever, the root directory will be hidden from you, and you won't have to worry about what /dev/hpet is, or /usr/lib64, or any of that stuff.

Longer path names just inconvenience the knowledgeable people without providing any corresponding gain for the novices.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 2:42 UTC (Thu) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] (7 responses)

This is the kind of crazy logic I expected, rather than something sensible. "If your looking in the root directory you're assumed to know what you're doing"? Are you serious? Same for the the "it was /var/run, so now it's just /run" argument. So what? Seems like a good time to tidy that up as well. I think the only reasonable answer I've seen yet is the "because the Unix gurus of old deemed it so". I assume at one time, it might have really mattered (in terms of limitations on path length, etc.), but those days are in the distant past.

For the record, I have introduced (or tried to introduce) Linux to a number of new users, generally from the Microsoft but some from the Apple world. Without exception, they have found the cryptic naming "conventions" for the root directory to be off-putting. Their displeasure only deepens when they are offered an explanation, and they adopt a genuine scowl when told the blunt truth: because the programmers who built the system prefer it that way.

I would venture that the cryptic root naming convention is the most immediate, visible, and universal barrier to entry for potential new Linux users. The sad part is, it doesn't have to be so.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 11:24 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link]

> I would venture that the cryptic root naming convention is the most
> immediate, visible, and universal barrier to entry for potential new Linux > users. The sad part is, it doesn't have to be so.

You're very wrong. Because for a non-english speaker "bin" is just as alien as "binaries".

And if you don't want to go there, but l10n everything, you'll end up in a _terrible_ mess. See Windows, some fuckwits did that: "Program Files" and "Programme" and "Logiciel".

Cheers
Seegras

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 13:46 UTC (Thu) by zzxtty (guest, #45175) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm tired of people trying to take a powerful operating system and turn it into a Windows clone that grandma can use. Linux has a target audience, it is not aimed at the computer-illiterate, renaming /etc/ to /a_folder_that_contains_configuration_information_for_various_computer_programmes_which_you_probably_dont_need_to_worry_about helps nobody. One size does not fit all, the more you try to appeal to the masses the less appealing the operating system will become.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 13:50 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]

it's OK. Gentoo and slack and LFS and other such distros are still there.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 16:32 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]

If your design you system with newbies as the priority, you will only have newbies on your system. Have you ever heard of Windows guru? If you have, it likely does not mean: "someone who is powerful with windows and can do lots with it", but rather "someone who knows and understands all the dirty hacks and ways around or to avoid them". Does anybody aspire to that?

I for one am reminded with many reasons any time I touch a windows (rare) PC, why I don't like it. Long untraversable (and weirdly hidden and tangled) paths which seem different on every windows version are one of the reasons. GUIs seem of no help to me to understand the layout either since each GUI twists and pretends the paths start at different roots.

So, you may believe that newbies understand long names better, but I suspect that what really happens is that nobody understands them. So, if the only way you can make a newbie as smart as an expert is by making the expert dumb, perhaps you have not really gained anything?

But again, read the previous posts. It is not about old gurus or being harder to type. It is about being able more easily read things, to visualize and remember a whole directory structure in one's head fairly easily. It's about making problems smaller and more easy to comprehend, more local. Your PC is not the WWW, it should not need long global directory names to separate itself from the rest of the PCs on the internet.

Keep the simple things simple. Yes, "simple", not "dumbed down". Assume (and enable) some level of competence and you will be rewarded with it. Assume idiots (and prevent progress) and you will get...

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 22:29 UTC (Thu) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link] (2 responses)

> This is the kind of crazy logic I expected, rather than something
> sensible....

> I would venture that the cryptic root naming convention is the most
> immediate, visible, and universal barrier to entry for potential new Linux
> users. The sad part is, it doesn't have to be so.

Doesn't MacOS have most of the same top-level directories as Linux? And isn't MacOS the operating system that user interface gurus love to go on and on about? Go away, troll.

Introducing /run

Posted Apr 1, 2011 0:04 UTC (Fri) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] (1 responses)

I was going to let it ride, but out-and-out assholes like cmccabe really need to be dealt with.

>Doesn't MacOS have most of the same top-level directories as Linux?

No, as it turns out, it really doesn't. http://osxdaily.com/2007/03/30/mac-os-x-directory-structu.... It seems Apple has retained many of the directory names/labels, some apparently for "historical" purposes, but that in a number of key cases they also have other directories with similar functions but more informative labels.

In any case, I wasn't criticizing the existing names of root-level directories, as those would obviously be painful to change, but merely noting that an opportunity to provide a more informative name for a NEW top-level directory had been passed up. Make sure you know for what reason you're calling someone a troll or else you will provide a clear opportunity for someone to point out that you're an asshole.

>And isn't MacOS the operating system that user interface gurus love to go on and on about?

Oh, hell, I don't know; I guess so. I don't pay much attention to the MacOS crowd.

Introducing /run

Posted Apr 1, 2011 18:15 UTC (Fri) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]

I called you a troll because I genuinely did not see how anyone could hold the point of view you were espousing. Maybe I was a little bit too hasty.

Let me just rewind a bit. You said that:

> I would venture that the cryptic root naming convention is the most
> immediate, visible, and universal barrier to entry for potential new Linux
> users. The sad part is, it doesn't have to be so.

Yet MacOS has the same naming convention (except it doesn't have a /lib directory.) Somehow, nobody has found it to be an "immediate, visible and universal barrier to entry" for MacOS.