Would /srv be for files that are served up mostly unmodified? Or would you also put the database for a web application under, for example /srv/db? In a sense, the database contains objects that get served up but they get transformed by the web app, so it seems they should go into something under /var (like /var/lib/data/[db_vendor_name]).
> This main purpose of specifying this is so that users may find the ___location of the data files for particular service,...
If I read the docs right, if a database needs to keep data permanently, /srv seems to be an ideal place. It's not restricted to static files being served on a network, just where data (regardless of format or transformations) should be stored.
More abstractly, if any daemon, service, or file share needs to store any data that is read/written to/from a network, that data should be in /srv. Probably.
> if a man wants to have /storage on his owned machine, who are we to tell him otherwise?
Nothing wrong with a man putting /storage on his owned machine.
But if I were using my own machine and I put /storage there (actually, I used /opt/<site>), it would be because I didn't know there was a standard place for things. Then someone told me about /srv and its purpose. So now I use /srv even on my own machine so that I'm familiar with /srv in a professional environment.
I'm all for filesystem standards but "serving" is such an ephemeral concept that I don't think it makes sense to mandate that "files" that are "served" must be mounted under /srv. That's just being excessively pedantic.
That makes me cringe. If a server's purpose involves serving files, those files should go in /srv.
https://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem-Hierarchy/html/srv.htm...