Slashdot Mirror
Define - /etc?
ogar572 asks: "There has been an ongoing and heated debate around the office concerning the definition of what /etc means on *nix operating systems. One side says "et cetera" per Wikipedia. Another side says it means 'extended tool chest' per this gnome mailing list entry or per this Norwegian article. Yet another side says neither, but he doesn't remember exactly what he heard in the past. All he remembers is that he was flamed when he called it 'et cetera', but that 'extended tool chest' didn't sound right either. So, what does it really mean?"
It means etc...
Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark.
Long time UNIX hacks---and by that I mean UNIX guys from the early-1980s---pronounce /etc as "slash ett cee"; to me that makes it clear that /etc's origins are as "et cetera".
Is (!(/usr) && !(/bin) && !(/mnt) ...) a correct answer?
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
"/var" didn't exist until long after "/etc" was created; so, you can't look to /var's use to provide a clue to /etc's origins.
Enormous Trove of Configuration files, that's what it is.
But I'm afraid Ken Thompson or Dennis M. Ritchie would rather talk to their own poop than to Slashdot journalists.
So we rather speculate.
Considering none of the other standard directories are acronyms, I'd have to call bulltish on this one. :)
20 years ago, there was nothing to settle. It was et cetera. It was named that because of what it was used for. The configuration files for other things that live elsewhere. It provided a short reference to those files. Also notice how we did not like to type back then. Before that time, you were typing on what amounted to a glorified printer with a keyboard, so every char you did not have to type was great. One central location for binaries with a 3 letter name. Everyone knew where everything was. I'd get flamed if I said it was better than it is now, but it really was more elegant.
/etc. It all followed logic back then. Anyone loading tools in /etc would have been the one getting flamed for not knowing how to organize a system.
Extended tool chest? Yeah, name tools that go in
Ok, now I really do feel old because it was more than 20 years ago. Sad because I was smart enough to answer this and not smart enough to make millions when the industry took off. I'm also too stupid to understand flame wars. If you like your system a different way, do it. If you think I should do mine different, pound sand.
IIRC, some other systems (SunOS?) used to put binaries in there, which never made sense to me
Oh Jesus, get off your high horse you elitist prick.
I'm pretty sure it is "et etera". I've been mucking with Unix since Unix V7 (1980), and I've never heard of "extended tool chest". It doesn't really make sense because you don't put any tools there. If there were any "tools" to be put in an "extended chest", they'd have gone in "/usr/local" back in the day. That was before the practice of having an "/opt" directory evovled.
:"/etc". Over the years it became clear that "/etc" was very important, and "/usr" was too cluttered, etc., and thus we have the evolution of the modern Unix file hierarchy.
I always assumed that configuration stuff got shoved in etc because it wasn't a program (that would go in "/bin") it wasn't a library ("/lib") and it wasn't some sort of user data ("/usr" -- this was before "/home"). It was something else, so it went in a place set aside for miscellany
The hierarchy may include historical obscurities such as "/etc", but it is remarkably well thought out. It shows the wisdom of abstracting the file system from storage devices. "/etc" also eliminates, or at least reduces the argument for, a system wide registry file such as Windows has, which has turned out to cause as many problems as it solves.
But it is undoubtedly a bit obscure to the newcomer's eye.
I remember the 1980s when the microcomputer transformed business. In the mid 1980s, most people who worked in computers had been weaned on, or least familiarized, with some form of Unix. When I started my job at one place around 1986, my predecessor had arranged everybody's file systems so their applications were stored in folder under a "bin" folder at the root (this was a Mac shop). By 1990, I was hiring people who had only used personal computers and had never used Unix. One of those people extended the "bin" traditoin by naming the application folder "Bin of Applications" -- as if "bin" referred to an open box, rather than "binary". It gave me a chuckle. "Bin of Applications" carried the idea to the user much better than "bin", and posed no particular inconvenience on a system where you never have to type path names.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'm replying to you because you were more polite than the sibling. Just because the word "cetera" is Latin does not mean that it is pronounced with an S sound. In fact, in Latin, it would never have been pronounced that way. In the days of Caesar, it would have been pronounced with a K sound and, as the Latin language evolved into ecclesiastical Latin, it would be pronounced with a CH sound.
The pronunciation with an S sound comes from the way that Latin words have usually been anglicized. Most often, the letters are pronounced as in English but the syllables are accented as in the original Latin.
Why would /etc be an acronym when every other directory off root is an abreviation? /bin - binaries /boot - bootstrap files /dev - devices /home - user home directories /lib - libraries /mnt - temporary mounts /proc - processes /sbin - static binaries /tmp - temporary files /usr - user programs (not boot critical) /var - variable data
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
In which, ironically, it is pronounced "et ketera" (stress on the "ke" and remember to roll the r). English has done really weird things to the pronounciation of Latin.
Chris Mattern
Old Unix systems (at least I remember this for SCO OpenServer) also had a bunch of executables in /etc. This is still the case to a limited extent. Think of /etc/init.d/*.
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
"/var" didn't exist until long after "/etc" was created; so, you can't look to /var's use to provide a clue to /etc's origins.
/etc is exactly three months older than /var. Amazing!!
server / # ls -lah
total 72K
drwxr-xr-x 47 root root 4.0K Feb 11 10:23 etc
drwxr-xr-x 14 root root 4.0K May 11 2005 var
Wow, you're right.
adventure-today.com
No, but they did write millions of lines of poetry, much of it with strict forms. If you read a million lines of C with lots of good comments, you'd figure out the syntax before you finished.
"Eh... That's where them Config files goes"
It's et cetera. If you look at the Unix hierarchy, you get:
It's not about configuration files, either. /etc is home to both configuration and system-essential files, such as passwd and motd. I wouldn't call passwd "configuration," and I wouldn't call it "data." It's more "control." But that doesn't matter - the stuff in /etc just wouldn't fit anywhere else. All the backronyms in the world won't change that.
Originally, /usr was an abbreviation of "user", it was where you put home directories. /usr/ken was Ken Thomson's home directory, and /usr/dmr was Dennis Richie's home directory.
/usr.
(These are the guys that invented Unix.)
Then people started making home directories named after software packages. After a while, these names became standardized, and it became necessary to put home directories in some other location than
Doug Moen
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
Because the "editable" is redundant.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
>>>" Editable Text Configuration
>That sounds like the most reasonable response to me, but do you have any references (so that we can correct wikipedia)?
I think you're quite safe to use GP's Slasdot entry as the reference.
'linked-in binaries'. Here's some of the other TLAs: /lib: linked-in binaries /etc: extended tool chest /usr: unix system routines /bin: basic instructions (native) /var: volatile access region /opt: one per terminal /tmp: this maybe purged /mnt: multiple network things /dev: dont ever violate /sys: she's your sister
You see, the etc hierarchy on Unix was the successor the etb hierarchy on Unics, which was named for the ETA configuration mechanism on Multics, which was named for ETA OIN SHRDLU. So, now you know.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
...Etc Text Configuration.
It does. Originally it contained configuration files, start-up scripts, and system management tools needed at boot. As time has gone on, most of the second group are in subdirectories of /etc, and the latter group was moved to /sbin. Amiga users will probably note that the "S" directory had similar problems in AmigaOS 1.x, and was similarly broken up on AmigaOS 2.x.
Historically, Unix had /sys for the kernel (short for SYStem, duh), /usr for user areas (yes, user areas), /lib for system libraries, /bin for top-level binaries, and /etc as the miscellaneous area. As time went on, substantial amounts of the operating system went into /usr, with the "bin" account set up to contain most of the tools people needed (which is why bin is also in /etc, and owns substantial amounts of the operating system, despite the apparent lack of a need to have that. It's legacy practices.)
So some time in the mid to late eighties, much of this started to be moved around. Real home directories were moved out of /usr to a variety of directories, eventually standardising, Mac OS X aside, on /home. /usr itself started to be reorganized to look something like the top level, /etc was cleaned out (though much of this happened in the mid-nineties), and we have what we see today.
Meanwhile, people trying to be "clever" have invented new names for all these areas. I've heard people claim that USR stands for "Unix System Resources", which opens the question of why all the system directories don't begin with "US"? We see the nonsense above about ETC meaning something other than, well, etc, and other silly explanations doubtless exist for BIN and VAR.
The names mean what they sound like they mean. If it doesn't sound like a directory has a name that fits its current use, it's usually because it wasn't intended for that use originally.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
precisely. UnixWare did this as well.
/etc/conf/bin
also idtune, the kernel param config util is in
...is that it is the "home directory for the system". To me, that captures the sense that it's where a particular system gets its configuration (/etc/inittab, /etc/ttys) and personality (/etc/motd, /etc/issue).
Personally I'm in the "et setera" camp, and prefer the spoken form "et see".
but Kaiser and Caesar mean two very different things in the food world. ask for it one way and you get bread, (or health insurance++) and the other gets you salad. huh?!
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Going back to SVR2, /etc, /lib, and /bin contained files that were needed in single-user mode, when /usr was unmounted (e.g., during boots & backups). It was not uncommon for multi-user mode only configuration files to reside somewhere in /usr (cron & UUCP come to mind).
i believe you are looking for this. i still haven't bothered to try it out though. i hate being a poor geek
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Sorry, I'm an early morning drunk. I meant "Essential Text Configurations"
Beer! It's what's for breakfast!
We don't, but historical linguistics is like any other science - we can try to find the theories that best explain the available evidence, and refine those over time as new ideas are developed.No, but they did many other useful things, like transliterate words between languages and scripts; e.g. writing Latin names in the Greek alphabet and vice versa, or writing Celtic and Germanic names in the Latin alphabet. This doesn't tell us much about the actual sounds the alphabets represented, but it tells us about their relationships, and reduces the number of plausible solutions for ancient pronunciation.
For a simple example, "Caesar" was regularly written in Greek as the equivalent of "kaisar", not as "saisar" or "saizar". The fact that different Greek letters were chosen to represent the different Latin letters implies that they represented different sounds. From considering all the other evidence, we find that the solution that is most consistent with the observed facts is the one that has Greek kappa and Latin C pronounced like an English K; therefore we conclude that "Caesar" was pronounced with a "k" sound, and it also seems reasonable to assume that "caetera" was consistent with that.
The people who made up these file systems are not the pointy haired middle management type, they are geeks like me and you. They don't have acronyms for everything. /etc isn't going to stand for something like "extendable tool configuration", it is either going to stand for et cetera or nothing at all. People who want to sound cool by saying things like, "SQL stands for Structured Query Language" are just trying to "sound smart" in front of their "friends". That's my philosophy after looking at your explanation of the UNIX hierarchy.
Sig: I stole this sig.
If you read a million lines of C with lots of good comments, you'd figure out the syntax before you finished.
;)
And if you read a millions lines of Perl, you would come to the conclusion that it has no syntax, then you would scratch your eyes out with a ball point pen.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Thanks for the tip. All this time, I'd been pronouncing "C" as "one hundred."
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
...as opposed to the non-editable, non-text configuration files that Unix systems are famous for?
These are the people who named the editor "ed". Don't overthink it.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Lot of hardcore unix guys pronounce it "et-see" because you sound retarded saying, "It's in "et-cetera-slash-init-period-d" rather than "et-see init-dee". Same reason people transliterate Ess-Que-Ell into "Sequel"...It's quicker, and it sounds better.
In my mind I always label people who insist on saying it exactly like it's written down as amatures, or anal retentive, though people who try to come up with ways of saying things like "url" make my teeth hurt.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Oh, I'm sorry.
/usr/sbin on HPUX. There is a symlink to it in /etc, but that's not where the binary lives.
/usr/sbin/ping /usr/sbin/ping /etc/ping /etc/ping -> /usr/sbin/ping
/sbin/init.d (as well as /sbin/rc0.d->rc6.d) which makes sense. They're executables, for the super-user, which belong in /sbin.
:)
the ping binary is in
Try again sometime.
root@mrsparkle# ls -l
-r-sr-xr-x 1 root bin 49152 Oct 18 15:54
root@mrsparkle# ls -l
lr-sr-xr-t 1 root sys 14 Mar 14 2006
HPUX is actually much LESS retarded than most in a lot of ways. They actually moved the init startup scripts to
It makes more logical sense. It's just 'different' than most Unices.
(and if you've ever used the Software Distributor, you know what real package management is like.... RPM, pkgadd and the ilk can go scratch. swinstall is where it's at!
'm replying to you because you were more polite than the sibling. Just because the word "cetera" is Latin does not mean that it is pronounced with an S sound. In fact, in Latin, it would never have been pronounced that way. In the days of Caesar, it would have been pronounced with a K sound and, as the Latin language evolved into ecclesiastical Latin, it would be pronounced with a CH sound.
You're quite right of course, but do you actually use these pronunciations in casual conversation?
Not that I have a lot of cause to randomly speak in Latin, but when I do, I usually say "venee, vedee, veechee", "et setera", "Sisero", rather than the corresponding correct versions with double-U's and hard C's. To do otherwise would usually prompt a blank look, followed by an forced explanation on my part which would probably come off as being rather pedantic.
Almost got it all right, but "usr" is "Unix System Resources." That goes way back.
It may mean that now (and /usr = Unix System Resources, yeah right)
/etc. And configuration files also used to live in places like the root directory, or /var. /usr or even /lib, sometimes in ./conf/ subdirs.
/usr really did mean 'users', as in, resources for users not administrators. Well at one point it also held home directories before that was split off into home.
But if you remember, programs like mount and user databases (when passwd files got too long to scan) were thrown into
So it really did mean etcetra. And
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Brian W. Kernighan and Rob Pike, chapter 2.6 -- "The Directory Hierarchy":
/etc/getty, which initializes a terminal connection for /bin/login. /etc/rc is a file of shell commands that is executed after the system is bootstrapped. /etc/group list the members of each group."
/etc, so that's the best I could do from my own bookshelf.
"/etc (et cetera) we have also seen before. It contains various administrative files such as the password file and some systems programs such as
I looked through Ritchie and Thompson's "The UNIX Time-Sharing System" and found no mention of
> And yet we still do not know how they pronounced them because they wrote down their language
> they did not speak it into a dictaphone. Et cetera is pronounced as the English-speaking world has decided,
> not Latin pronunciation guessers.
A lot of that pronunciation knowledge comes from how Latin works were translated into Greek. They used kappa to represent 'C' in transliterated Latin words.
- MFN
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
Google "extended tool chest" returns "about 13 results." If that's the meaning, it's a very well-kept secret meaning.
Shit.
Who needs a million? That happens to me every time I read a single line of perl code.
Where we find...
An interesting tidbit is the list of files installed into the boot disk from tape on a virgin UNIX system:
et cetera makes sense as its not just configuration, you have init, password and "various" other stuff found there. etc.. etc..
/etc is much less confusing ok."
A better questions is.. why does Windows Vista (the most advanced OS on planet earth per Steve and Bill) use alphabet device names in 2007?
I can hear computer novices saying..
Novice: "Why is my primary drive C and not A?"
Master: "A and B are reserved for floppy drives."
Novice: "What's a floppy drive?"
Master: ".. Something we don't use anymore."
Novice: "Why are they still reserved then?"
Master: "They just are."
Novice: "Why isn't A the primary and C or Z reserved?"
Master: "... just use Unix, explaining
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
I think you're misreading the output. /etc is from Feb 11 of this year, while /var is from May 11 of 2005. So /var is actually a few years older.
My other car is first.
emacs - Escape Meta Alt Control Shift.
gdb - Get Down Baby.
gcc - Give Communism (a) Chance.
linux - Linus Is Not Usually Xeroflulogitic.
lisp - Lisp Is (for) Symbolic Programming.
java - Just Another Variant (of) Ada.
perl - Perl Essentially Resembles Lisp.
printf - People Rarely Insist (on) Naming This Function.
sed - Slashdot (is) Easily Duped.
top - Totally Ongoing Programs.
vi - Very Irritating.
As support, I ask how you pronounce "etc" when you read it in a book, magazine, etc...? How were you taught to pronounce it in your English class (apparently, so many years ago)?
Ya, I thought so. :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I used a mechanical pencil. When scratching out your eyes there's more than one way to do it.
Actually there are no .'s or ..'s in the file system. These little gems only denote relative directories and are never actually part of the file system. I'll refrain from calling you a noob. Like the . it is almost always implied, and in 99% of the cases is just redundant.
/etc debate. I thought FSH settled all of this ridiculous bickering years ago? /etc is etcetera abbreviated. "Extended Tool Chest" is the most retarded thing i've ever heard. I don't know why people are still debating this. The people over at the FSH project put a lot of hard work in to their documents specifically to avoid stuff like this.
As for the
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
If you must!
lisp = lots (of) infuriating, superfluous parentheses
According to Dr. Peter H. Salus, it means et cetera.
According to Dr. Salus, "Editable Text Configuration" is alien to the thinking of the creators.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
* c always hard:
This is fairly well established. The Romans were highly literate and were quite capable of describing the sounds their letters made. It's not like trying to guess what color dinosaurs' skins were. We know the Latin 'C' made a
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
User programs that use the etc hierarchy always use /etc for the system etc files, but for a while it was fashionable to have /usr/etc store the "not any of the above" files specific to userspace applications. The same then applied to /usr/local/etc for local versions of user tools.
Programs that needed their own tree, like X11, OpenLook, or whatever, created their own directory off /usr and built exactly the same layout for themselves on a local basis.
This all makes perfect sense, requires no acronymitis, and explains a lot of how Unix got along for so long without a "standard base" specification. If anything, attempts to eliminate some of the directory hierarchies in modern Unix software is actually making it much harder to find anything and much riskier to install software, due to the increased risk of namespace collisions. As none of the older packages considered there to be any risk - they were off in their own isolated namespace - none of the older packages take any care over their naming conventions.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Actually there are no .'s or ..'s in the file system. These little gems only denote relative directories and are never actually part of the file system
Honest question based on your statement...Why then do . and .. affect the reference counts on hard links?
I have found there are just two ways to go.
It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow. -REK, Jr.
Actually, I almost always use "&c." as the shortened form of et cetera. That is because the ampersand (&) is actually a stylized glyph of the Latin word et 'and'. Also, in lists, "&c." is always preceded by a comma, even if you normally omit the "Oxford comma". (E.g.: one, two and three; one, two, three and others; but, one, two, three, &c..)
There is no true advantage to this, but it is merely a stylistic choice. It's also about adhering to proper standards, such as italicizing non-English words in texts when they appear, such as trompe l'oeil 'trick/deceive the eye' (literally) or et cetera (&c.), in this example.
Yes, "editable text configuration" is a backronym.
And, as another user pointed out "editable text configurations" is a stupid name too, because if it's text, it's evidently editable. So why not just "text configurations" then? Also, in early Unix, everything was editable (remember, in Unix, everything is a file), so that's superfluous too. And, lastly, it was the repository for a lot of things that weren't configurations, including binaries.
Again, this is a backronym, and not even a clever one.
Regards,
--
*Art
isn't the official pronunciation of MS SQL server "Sequel"?
I wonder what that says about Microsoft
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
Actually, "." and ".." are part of the filesystem (i.e. they're stored on disk, as directory entries) in the FAT filesystem.
Assuming that all filesystems are implemented 100 % similar to the one(s) you know about _is_ noob and pretentious: the implementer of the FS is free to do things the way he sees fit as long as it provides reasonable semantics.
In fact he doesn't have to do directories or files at all - he may implement everything as a big hash with different entries sharing the same blocks.
That was his point. If '..' is a virtual directory and not an actual entry in the directory, then why does it affect the hardlink count of the directory it points to?
Is "/." pronounced "slash dot" or "oblique dot" or "diagonal dot"?
When I was introduced to Unix at Bell Labs in 1980 (cbunix 2.3) - it was pronounced "etcetera" (as in "etcetera password file"). If it was turned into a acronym, that was after the fact.
[Insert pithy quote here]