I genuinely feel that the Linux directory system presents an obstacle for users migrating from other systems as well as being a bottleneck for the evolution of Linux itself. Rest assured I am not here to start trolling. I am a huge fan of Linux as an alternative to increasingly bloated and expensive competitive operating systems, but rarely have I seen such stranded evolution in the core of an operating system.I realize that Linux and Unix professionals are firmly focused on providing stability and reliability, and abandoning working solutions in favor of new ideas isn't always the way to go. However, even as a computer professional with considerable experience using windows, I find that the cryptic and repetitive nature of the Linux directory structure constrains my efforts to use the OS in earnest.Windows finally shed its 8.3 names a few years ago, and few users would argue that things were better before. Instead we have seen a steady evolution towards less ambiguous file and folder names and improved structure (at least in some parts of the overall hierarchy). Of course Windows takes it too far by constantly changing storage location for all kinds of things. A windows user profile is a moving target if ever there was one. Nobody wants to keep up with something like that.My question is this. Would it harm Linux if the folder structure would evolve towards the human side of things by starting to remove some of its ambiguity and cryptical nature so that advanced users from other worlds could start to wrap their brains around the excellence of Linux.Is it really harmful if we would start to see:BinariesLibrariesDriversUsersUser1BinariesLibrariesUser2BinariesLibrariesDevicesHelpIn my world I prefer even more catagorized top level folders:ApplicationsSystemUser DataDon't take the above directory outlines too literally. They are just meant to illustrate a point.
Is the linux directory structure obsolete and obtuse?
linux;directory structure