>this is difficult in linux
is it though?
Never used linux but even on windows most package managers have something like "--tree=/some/fucking/path" option.
>>55310859
yeah
even when you can it breaks shared libraries
>>55310816
Because we are smart enough to have a different software that will take care about everything package related.
Why would I want this anyways?
>>55310958
>it breaks shared libraries
on windows maybe, but not on linux
ld-linux.so is responsible for finding libraries to load, which directories used is controlled by ld.so.config
>>55311713
let's say you have a small ssd and a large hdd and you want to install large software on the hdd while only keeping the basics on the ssd
>>55311785
Lasrge software generally come in tarballs which can be run locally(my home directory is on hdd). I never had issues like this even though I am using an ssd and hdd combo.
>>55310816
lmao rekt #420 noscope
nvidia > AMD
INTEL > AMD
shills BTFO L-M-A-O
>>55311870
So much this. Same setup here. Simple as shit
>>55310816
How is this difficult?
>Hurrrrr what are mount points
Installing an application into a specific directory is difficult?
Pretty sure you can just use ImageMagick to strip the exif data from files from the command line in linux.
convert <input file> -strip <output file>
>>55310816
Couldn't linux or even windows just adopt .app packages? They were made in the 80s, and they solve the installer and dependency problem and can be placed anywhere. Ubuntu tries to replicate this in 2016, but couldn't linus do it in 199-something?
>>55310816
>this is difficult on windows
>being able to install wherever on windows and make a fucking mess of the filesystem
>vs installing launch binaries/scripts in a strict directory hierarchy that makes everything perfectly logical for everyone in GNU
Paid Microsoft shills, just leave.
>>55312602
thats why linux has 10+ root directories while windows has 3?
like why do we need /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, and /sbin?
logical ain't it
t. not a shill
>>55310816
Installing shovelware is difficult? Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
>>55312628
Also /opt
>>55312628
>/bin
Outdated
>/usr/sbin/
Outdated
>/sbin/
Outdated
There used to be a split between /bin and /usr/bin because of the possibility of /usr being on a separate partition than root, so basic binaries had to be in /bin (e.g. mount). And sbin were for root user-only binaries, but again this has been depreciated. So yes, logical.
>>55312688
And /opt is for user-installed, Windows-like self-contained binary directories.
How about looking at a "GNU directory structure for dummies" cheatsheet before asking next time?
>>55311785
Just statically link that shit.
>>55312712
while i agree they should be deprecated, the latest Unix (POSIX) standard still has them, and 99% of linux distributions have them.
>>55312628
>/bin
basic system binaries like cd, ls
>/sbin
system binaries only to use by root
>/usr/bin
user program binaries, like mpv or gimp
>/usr/sbin
user program binaries only to use by root
it's perfectly logical
>>55312745
apparently you can only ping under root now> cd sbin
> ls
SystemStarter fsck_exfat halt mount mount_hfs newfs_hfs quotacheck
autodiskmount fsck_hfs ifconfig mount_acfs mount_msdos newfs_msdos reboot
disklabel fsck_msdos ip6fw mount_afp mount_nfs newfs_udf route
dmesg fsck_udf ipfw mount_cd9660 mount_ntfs nfsd rtsol
dynamic_pager fstyp kextload mount_cddafs mount_smbfs nfsiod shutdown
emond fstyp_hfs kextunload mount_devfs mount_udf nologin umount
fibreconfig fstyp_msdos launchd mount_exfat mount_webdav pfctl
fsck fstyp_ntfs md5 mount_fdesc mpioutil ping
fsck_cs fstyp_udf mknod mount_ftp newfs_exfat ping6
(my os is compatible with posix standard)
>>55312733
GNU's Not Unix.
And I'm sure several still have them just because they don't want to change, but it's basically gone now and many distros just link /bin, /sbin, and /usr/sbin to /usr/bin
>>55312802
Linux is not GNU
>>55312834
Linux isn't the filesystem. Linux isn't the OS. Linux is the kernel.
Do you call Windows NTOSKRNL.EXE?
>>55312850
gnu is only some terminal utilities
whose can be replaced by bsd ones
>>55312880
>replaced by BSD ones
At which it's... called BSD.
Seriously, kids. This isn't difficult to understand.
Now install two copies of one program(each with different settings) without using terminal!
>>55311785
Whatever. A linux system will take less disk place than Windows anyway, even with all your software installed. Games are installed on your home partition by default.
>>55310816./configure --prefix=/path/to/install
So hard.
Really though, it creates more problems than it solves. The lack of standardization around Windows software installation (not just location) is appalling. (I recently had to create a Windows installer at work)
I can't believe MS hasn't fixed it in all this time.
