▲ 1215 ▼ Linux Directory Structure - FHS (lemm.ee) submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by sag@lemm.ee to c/linux@lemmy.ml 193 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] dafo@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (3 children) I don't trust a graphic which explains /boot as "system boot loader files"... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] irreticent@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? What's inaccurate about it? I have no idea and would like to learn. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dafo@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* It's not wrong, but it feels a bit like some tech articles you'll see which are obviously just created to fluff up a CV. I wouldn't say avyttring here is flat out wrong, just kinda... lacking. But yeah, /boot holds "system boot loader files", sure, but that's a bit vague. It should contain your kernel and initramcpio and IIRC Grub also had its config here. That's pretty much it. I would've rather said /boot contains the kernel. "device files" it's so vague that it's almost wrong IMO. At first glaze I would've thought that it means drivers rather than, say, "interfaces to devices" permalink fedilink source parent [–] Peter1986C@lemmings.world 4 points 2 years ago It kind of makes sense on many BIOS/UEFI-less systems where e.g. Uboot is used. And it does contain things like kernel images, sometimes initRD files etc. (which may not be bootloader files but are still system boot files). permalink fedilink source parent [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Well that's a shame for me. This graphic finally made the Linux file directory structure make sense to me permalink fedilink source parent
[–] irreticent@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? What's inaccurate about it? I have no idea and would like to learn. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dafo@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* It's not wrong, but it feels a bit like some tech articles you'll see which are obviously just created to fluff up a CV. I wouldn't say avyttring here is flat out wrong, just kinda... lacking. But yeah, /boot holds "system boot loader files", sure, but that's a bit vague. It should contain your kernel and initramcpio and IIRC Grub also had its config here. That's pretty much it. I would've rather said /boot contains the kernel. "device files" it's so vague that it's almost wrong IMO. At first glaze I would've thought that it means drivers rather than, say, "interfaces to devices" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dafo@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* It's not wrong, but it feels a bit like some tech articles you'll see which are obviously just created to fluff up a CV. I wouldn't say avyttring here is flat out wrong, just kinda... lacking. But yeah, /boot holds "system boot loader files", sure, but that's a bit vague. It should contain your kernel and initramcpio and IIRC Grub also had its config here. That's pretty much it. I would've rather said /boot contains the kernel. "device files" it's so vague that it's almost wrong IMO. At first glaze I would've thought that it means drivers rather than, say, "interfaces to devices" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Peter1986C@lemmings.world 4 points 2 years ago It kind of makes sense on many BIOS/UEFI-less systems where e.g. Uboot is used. And it does contain things like kernel images, sometimes initRD files etc. (which may not be bootloader files but are still system boot files). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Well that's a shame for me. This graphic finally made the Linux file directory structure make sense to me permalink fedilink source parent
