Why is the Linux filesystem layout still so obscure?

I would like to see more descriptive foldernames, and grouping catalogs together like your example would also help maintaining the system.
I'm relatively new on linux, and having problems finding out where the hell that application I just installed went.
The real issue is:

• Who will decide the new standard?
• How long will the transition take?

I think it would take years for a new standard to emegre, and in the meantime we would have 2 standards battling on our box. So i guess we just have to stick with what works...

Isn't the filesystem more or less standarized by the "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard" (http://www.pathname.com/fhs). I thought most Linux OSes used directories like /usr, /dev, /bin, /lib, /home... However, I'm just starting with Linux, and the filesystem is still obscure to me. When I want to change a configuration, or when I'm just searching something, it still takes a long time. I don't get why some apps are at /usr/bin, some at /usr/share and some at /etc/*name*. Most have a file at all those locations. On Windows, each application has a C:Program Files*name* directory, but on Linux the files are about everywhere.

I must agree that the learning curve for Linux is higher than for Windows, but I see this as the price to pay for using free software. There are several issue related to the question.

First of all, if we speak of Linux as a server platform there is not much justification in making the filesystem layout more usable. After all, usability in this case falls back to strictly personal tastes. Most sysadmins (at least the ones I know) are perfectly happy with the standard layout. Moreover, nothing prevents those who find that fS layout does not suit their needs, to change it (at the cost of more difficult maintenance afterwards). I cannot agree that "being difficult to learn" is an issue at all - Cisco certifications are also difficult but this does not stop people from studying.

Secondly, the average desktop user has very little to do with the filesystem itself, so this is not an issue.

Thirdly, Windows filesystem layout is even more difficult to understand. Just try to find out which DLL's does a program use and which registry entries it has made. In that respect Linux is just transparent.

I think the whole problem is that some people are just too lazy, and get frustrated too quickly. The real problem with the speedier adoption of Linux according to me is, the lack of good documentation and the lack of a comprehensive troubleshooting knowledge base (newsgroups and mailing lists do not always work).

With modern distributions it shouldn't be a concern for the "joe user" what the filesystem named - modern desktop enviroments make browsing the files system a snap. Applications get installed automagically, and configurations done via wizards and control panels.

If you want to manage a linux server then spending 10-15 minutes to understand the "general rule" of what directory is for what will help you with 90% of your tasks.

Pid, you could always install linux from scratch and set up the directories the way you want. That would be a fun challenge if you've got some spare time and a spare partition laying around. Maybe that would give you a good idea of a reccomendation to make to the FHS or something. I definitely agree with you that the layout could be better...

There actually exists a projet to "modernize" the filesystem layout in Linux, though unfortunately I cannot remember the name of it and so haven't been able to find it yet by Googling. The idea is essentially to model it a little bit after OS X's layout, which is much more transparent in many respects.

I certainly think that this could be a nice thing for users with relatively little experience, and in the long run it would be good for all. However, in the short term, one would have to be careful with this as it may cause complications in converting everything over to a new directory structure. Big changes require big commitments, and while I would eventually like to see this as a change, I don't think that it's the most pressing need in getting Linux to be easier to use for most people. First thing's first, I suppose is what I am trying to say.

Yesss. The filesystem is one of the most fundamental parts of an interface, so it should not be the hardest part to understand!

Linux is a "UNIX like" operating system so it models it's filesystem layout after it. There is a ton a reasons for this but mainly because of comptability with UNIX standard and heritage. To change it would break things and adoption of the changes would be slow since what is there works.

The thing to look at is do you really understand the layout? A file system layout is itself a namespace, and you need to understand the elements of it and their purpose to understand it. Things will be a lot less confusing once you understand the layout. Google found a good page explaining this here.

Another thing to realize is that generally when working from your shell you don't really need to know where things live. Your shell (sh, bash, etc) has the ability to pull this namespaces together to be accessible as equals by setting your PATH enviornment properly. You don't need to know where 'ls' lives if it is in your PATH.

Secondly I am not adverse to a new layout but it should be done as an adjunct layout and namespace. I actually really think higher level things in a linux system should use a seperate namespace for things like GNOME, KDE, or other user applications. OSX already has a model for this, and you will notice though OSX still has your standard unix file system layout along with it. They don't want break the standard and expectations for the unix parts of the system.

Maybe you should consider giving GoboLinux a whirl. Someone else appears to have scratched the same itch you have already.