Introducing /run

Posted Apr 1, 2011 0:04 UTC (Fri) by pyellman (guest, #4997)
In reply to: Introducing /run by cmccabe
Parent article: Introducing /run

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.

to post comments

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.