Hi,
It was a command you type in a terminal windows and it explains what each directory/structure is for in Linux. Someone showed me about a month ago, but I didn’t right the command down and forgot how to do it.
Thanks!
Don’t know exactly what you might be describing,
but I use “tree” to display file and folder hierarchy.
So, for instance to display the contents of “Downloads” including all folders and files,
tree ~/Downloads
Of course, you’ll need to install it if necessary
zypper in tree
TSU
An explanation is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_filesystem#Conventional_directory_layout
And the list (some of it)
tree
It starts by default from the working directory. Thus if you want it from the whole system
tree /
And of course the documentatation:
man tree
Thanks for the help.
It wasn’t the “tree” command. It was some command that you type at the terminal and it shows you all the directories (if I remember all at once) with a detailed description/explanation of each directory. Essentially it states what the directory is for and what is stored there. It was pretty detailed, all from just a terminal command. I’ve been searching the web, but can’t find it.
Thanks!
Well, if I want to display all mounted directories (I kind of doubt you want to really display all directories), I use the “df” command, and to display in “human readable format” use the -h switch as follows
df -h
I don’t know of a command that really verbosely describes what each mount point is used for, though and I wonder if that’s really very possible. I don’t think the metadata exists in the file system so my guess is you’re looking at a larger application and not a simple command only.
TSU
Well
tree /
will give you all the directories. And there can be thousands of them.
But it will not give you where they are for, because there no description for that anywhere in the system (well, not in a standard defined way).
I looked for the “take a brain dump” command, but I could not find it.
What a directory is for, is up to the users of that directory.
Yes, there are some standard conventions. Maybe some of them are in a Wiki somewhere. I don’t know of a command that tells you those conventions.
On 2015-05-01 18:06, Secret68 wrote:
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> It wasn’t the “tree” command. It was some command that you type at the
> terminal and it shows you all the directories (if I remember all at
> once) with a detailed description/explanation of each directory.
> Essentially it states what the directory is for and what is stored
> there. It was pretty detailed, all from just a terminal command. I’ve
> been searching the web, but can’t find it.
That’s will be the FHS, Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. I don’t know a
command for it, unless it is a man page. Try “apropos fhs”.
There is a documentation tree about fhs if you install the rpm package
for it. I don’t have it installed in this laptop, so I can’t tell you
the name offhand.
However, it does not describe all the directories you may have, of
course. It is is a document, it describes the directories defined on the
standard.
There is also a wikipedia page, with links. Ah! It says the man is “man
hier” (and that’s a command that runs on the CLI). I do have it. I don’t
know why it is called “hier” instead of “fhs”.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” (Minas Tirith))
Woohoo!
I found it! Its:
man hier
(hier - description of the filesystem hierarchy)
Yep, its was a man command. Thanks everyone for your help and for showing me some other useful commands. I’ve saved them for future reference…
On 2015-05-01 19:56, Secret68 wrote:
>
> Woohoo!
>
>
> I found it! Its:
>
>
> Code:
> --------------------
>
> man hier
>
> --------------------
Well, I told you that in my previous message…
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” (Minas Tirith))
I re read your previous post a little more slower and saw were you did say that, my goof! Good thing it wasn’t a snake, it would have bit me!
I agree with you that the crucial information there is hidden in a lot of small talk 
On 2015-05-02 20:36, hcvv wrote:
>
> Secret68;2707799 Wrote:
>> I re read your previous post a little more slower and saw were you did
>> say that, my goof! Good thing it wasn’t a snake, it would have bit me!
>>
> I agree with you that the crucial information there is hidden in a lot
> of small talk
Well, I wrote as I investigated. At the end I found it. I could have
erased the preceding paragraphs (and leave just the command), but
typically I don’t.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” (Minas Tirith))
Exactly…