Linux equivalent of Window's C:\Program Files
#1
Posted 12 November 2004 - 11:13 AM
Totally new to Linux. Just installed FC2.
Whats the Linux equivalent of Window's "C:\Program Files"
I want to install some apps but the default dir for some is the sam dir as the one where app was downloaded (desktop for example). I would like to know where these apps generally goto like Window's C:\Program Files
Thanks
#2
Posted 12 November 2004 - 11:22 AM
Most executables go in /usr/bin or /usr/share/bin, but others go into a bin directory under an application directory - it varies. Good advice is to use RPM's or yum to do the install and it takes care of it for you. yum generally istalls well supported programs or libraries and updates OS versions and doesn't handle smaller less well disributed stuff.
You can always locate the executables with "locate executableName" or "whereis executableName".
#3
Posted 12 November 2004 - 11:59 AM
2. Im downloading J2SE 1.5 which is a bin file. Should I download the rpm file instead ?
#4
Posted 12 November 2004 - 12:54 PM
This is my personal preference - others may have a different slant !!
#5
Posted 12 November 2004 - 04:09 PM
If not then which ones are the real executables ? I mean - which one contains the asm code like in Win exes ?
#6
Posted 13 November 2004 - 04:56 AM
It should be in /usr/bin with all the config etc. in /usr/share/yum. Make sure your $PATH includes /usr/bin ( surprised if it doesn't - but )
#7
Posted 13 November 2004 - 06:18 AM
It should give you a clean install.
http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraHOWTO
#8
Posted 13 November 2004 - 06:24 AM
#9
Posted 13 November 2004 - 06:51 AM
http://linuxcompatible.org/thread27839-1.html
but yum is great as well tools like these make things so much easier
#10
Posted 13 November 2004 - 08:18 AM
The closest is /usr/bin, /usr/share/bin, /usr/local/bin - but other apps are installed in an app directory, generally in the ./bin directory.
The unix directory conventions were in place before windows was even thought of.
Unix was not originally designed as an operating system, but was originally intended as an OS toolbox. It really needs a GUI, like Gnome, sitting over it to provide acces to the lower level toolbox functions.
Read some of the early writings of guys like Ken Thompsom et. al. to get a better vioew of Unix and its origins. Try "http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch02s01.html"
#11
Posted 13 November 2004 - 02:20 PM
Thanks
#12
Posted 13 November 2004 - 04:35 PM
I disagree with this completly. UNIX is a full fledge OS and it has been so dramaticly redesinged from it's conception back in the berkly days. I'm a unix administrtor and for security reasons not one of my 70 systems uses a gui. I still have all the tools availble to me. If anything unix guis get in teh way of the OS... but this is off topic just had to get it out there.
#13
Posted 14 November 2004 - 01:23 AM

Help










