Bug 21057

Comment 1 nik 2000-09-05 14:15:15 UTC

On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:30:20AM -0700, enderle@mdn.de wrote:
> My you add a note to hier(8), that /usr comes from unix system resources
> not from user?

I've always wondered what 'usr' stood for.  Do you have a cite for that
definition?

N
-- 
Internet connection, $19.95 a month.  Computer, $799.95.  Modem, $149.95.
Telephone line, $24.95 a month.  Software, free.  USENET transmission,
hundreds if not thousands of dollars.  Thinking before posting, priceless.
Somethings in life you can't buy.  For everything else, there's MasterCard.
  -- Graham Reed, in the Scary Devil Monastery

[ first sent to -doc; I just forgot to also send to gnats *mea maxima=20
culpa* ]


Dear FreeBSD doc'ers,

In my quest for the Holy Grail, ahem, for the origin of the /usr
"acronym", I received the following letter from Chris Coleman:

--------------------- Forwarded Message -------------------------

At the moment, I cannot recall where I got that tid bit of
information. Regardless of whether it originally stood for "user" or
not, calling it "User" would confuse new users..  Currently, the Unix
System Resources live there and that is what it should be called.
(IMHO)

I may be alone in this definition, but that definition is at least 4
years old. I never questioned it.  (Although, I may not be alone,
because I have been propigating that definition for the last 3-4
years.)

I found this definition in my searching, which may be more correct.

Mount point for sharable user commands, libraries, and documentation.
http://www.kelley.iu.edu/shyu/hpguide.html#files

Still, I'd prefer to keep using the Unix System Resources as a good
acronym to help people remember and distinguish between "user" files
and "system" files.

Feel Free to forward this to -doc if it helps any.

Chris Coleman
Daemon News
http://www.daemonnews.org
Bringing BSD together

------------------- End of Forwarded Message -------------------------

Best regards,
Salvo

Comment 3 marko 2000-09-19 00:47:37 UTC

On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 08:56:17 GMT, Salvo Bartolotta wrote:

> Dear FreeBSD doc'ers,
>        
> In my quest for the Holy Grail, ahem, for the origin of the /usr
> "acronym", I received the following letter from Chris Coleman:
>        
> --------------------- Forwarded Message -------------------------
>        
> At the moment, I cannot recall where I got that tid bit of
> information. Regardless of whether it originally stood for "user" or
> not, calling it "User" would confuse new users..  Currently, the Unix
> System Resources live there and that is what it should be called.
> (IMHO)
>        
> I may be alone in this definition, but that definition is at least 4
> years old. I never questioned it.  (Although, I may not be alone,
> because I have been propigating that definition for the last 3-4
> years.)
>        
> I found this definition in my searching, which may be more correct.
>        
> Mount point for sharable user commands, libraries, and documentation.
> http://www.kelley.iu.edu/shyu/hpguide.html#files
>        
> Still, I'd prefer to keep using the Unix System Resources as a good
> acronym to help people remember and distinguish between "user" files
> and "system" files.
>        
> Feel Free to forward this to -doc if it helps any.
       
I prefer Unix System Resources as well, however, in The Unix
Programming Environment by Kernighan & Pike (1984) I find:

p22:	    "On many systems, /usr is a directory that contains the
	     directories of all the users of the system."

p48:	    "/usr is often the top directory of the user filesystem
	     (user is abbreviated to usr in the same spirit as cmp,
	     ls, etc.)."

p64 (Table 2.1):

	     /usr	user file system

p65:	     "/usr is called the `user file system', although it may
	      have little to do with the actual users of the system."

So, what is the correct answer? Should I commit this PR, or just close
it. It shouldn't be left lying around.

> Chris Coleman
> Daemon News
> http://www.daemonnews.org
> Bringing BSD together
       
> ------------------- End of Forwarded Message -------------------------
       
> Best regards,
> Salvo
       
-- 
		4.4 - The number of the Beastie
________________________________________________________________
51.44°N  FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org
2.057°W  My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark
mailto:marko@freebsd.org                http://www.radan.com

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 9/19/00, 12:47:37 AM, Mark Ovens <marko@freebsd.org> wrote regarding
Re: docs/21057: Little correction of hier(8):


> On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 08:56:17 GMT, Salvo Bartolotta wrote:

> > Dear FreeBSD doc'ers,
> >
> > In my quest for the Holy Grail, ahem, for the origin of the /usr
> > "acronym", I received the following letter from Chris Coleman:
> >
> > --------------------- Forwarded Message -------------------------
> >
> > At the moment, I cannot recall where I got that tid bit of
> > information. Regardless of whether it originally stood for "user" or=

> > not, calling it "User" would confuse new users..  Currently, the Uni=
x
> > System Resources live there and that is what it should be called.
> > (IMHO)
> >
> > I may be alone in this definition, but that definition is at least 4=

> > years old. I never questioned it.  (Although, I may not be alone,
> > because I have been propigating that definition for the last 3-4
> > years.)
> >
> > I found this definition in my searching, which may be more correct.
> >
> > Mount point for sharable user commands, libraries, and documentation=
.
> > http://www.kelley.iu.edu/shyu/hpguide.html#files
> >
> > Still, I'd prefer to keep using the Unix System Resources as a good
> > acronym to help people remember and distinguish between "user" files=

> > and "system" files.
> >
> > Feel Free to forward this to -doc if it helps any.

> I prefer Unix System Resources as well, however, in The Unix
> Programming Environment by Kernighan & Pike (1984) I find:

> p22:      "On many systems, /usr is a directory that contains the
>            directories of all the users of the system."

> p48:      "/usr is often the top directory of the user filesystem
>            (user is abbreviated to usr in the same spirit as cmp,
>            ls, etc.)."

> p64 (Table 2.1):

>            /usr       user file system

> p65:       "/usr is called the `user file system', although it may
>             have little to do with the actual users of the system."

> So, what is the correct answer? Should I commit this PR, or just close=

> it. It shouldn't be left lying around.




Dear Mark Ovens,

You are [most probably] right; the evidence you have given should be
the ultimate historical answer.

Chris himself pointed out that he was not quite sure about the origin
of the "acronym" in question.

I was wondering whether something like the following would do: "...
originally abbreviated to usr in the same terse/concise [Unix]
style/spirit as ls, cmp etc.; subsequently reinterpreted as Unix
System Resources. The latter meaning seems to be more appropriate to
the current [Free]BSD filesystem layout [...]".

Unless other evidence and comments are provided, something like the
foregoing seems (to me) a sensible choice. But ... beware of my
English, I am Italian, after all :-)

Best regards,
Salvo

Comment 5 marko 2000-09-27 11:45:42 UTC

State Changed
From-To: open->closed

I'm closing this without committing it. The various discussions that have 
taken place suggest that there is no real provenance for the origin of 
either meaning of "usr". Additionally, hier(7) does not aim to describe 
Unix history (the first line states it is a "sketch" of the filesystem). 

If anyone disagrees strongly enough, feel free to re-open this and make the 
commit.