«

The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard makes a lot of sense, but you mustn’t be
misled by the actual names given to directories—much of that is historical,
and the names no longer mean what they say.

This
<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-lpic1-v3-104-7/index.html>
is an example of what happens when you’re not careful. Normally the IBM
DeveloperWorks series is of a lot better quality than this. Forget
“shareable� versus “unshareable�—that’s meaningless. What is important is
the distinction between read-only and read/write, as well as between code
and data. Thus:

/bin, /usr/bin -- code (executables), assumed read-only
/lib, /usr/lib -- code (libraries), assumed read-only
/usr/share -- read-only data
/var -- system read/write data
/etc -- system config files, normally only writable by direct human command

On Jun 14, 4:06*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard makes a lot of sense, but you mustn’t be
> misled by the actual names given to directories—much of that is historical,
> and the names no longer mean what they say.
>
With the greatest of respect, but I do not think that the likes of
'Impossible' could give a toss about *nix naming conventions.