[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       userlinux-discuss
Subject:    Re: [Discuss] Novel idea: Keep the existing file structure
From:       "Aaron J. Seigo" <aseigo () olympusproject ! org>
Date:       2004-02-09 19:36:59
Message-ID: 200402091237.00722.aseigo () olympusproject ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On February 09, 2004 02:59, Peter Kruse wrote:
> You are not serious, are you?  You want to change the file system
> hierarchy?  C'mon, thats absolutely ridiculous. 

yes; changing the FS hierarchy will only undo years of work put into LSB'ing 
the Linux world and mean creating years more work changing every piece of 
software out there. we need more interop, not less! especially if we want 
greater ISV support for our beloved OSes (in the plural).

that said, there are challenges with the current HFS layout, but only because 
we tend to still believe that average users require access to, and therefore 
understanding of, the file system. and this is simply not true. there are 
three general categories of fs use that are needed by users:

 o Data. this is their $HOME directory, and that's straightforward. no need to 
do anything special here. in fact, we're moving more and more to virtualizing 
the $HOME space ...

 o Program installation (and de-installation). just as the file manager can be 
an interface to program installation (drag and dropping of app packages), so 
can a package manager GUI. in fact, one might argue (probably successfully) 
that a file manager is a poor interface for software management. today's 
software management tools and their GUIs are EASY to use and include things 
like full text searching and automatic download and conflict resolution. with 
these tools, the average user never needs to actually see where the packages 
put their files; to the user the package tree IS the file system for apps.

 o Configuration. Again, given good defaults and good GUIs, this is a 
non-issue. Not to mention that reorganizing the FS to make configuration 
tasks "easier" by making config files "easier to find" is ignoring the real 
problem which is complexity within the configuration directives.

for those possessing above-average needs and abilities who compile programs 
from source or do wild and crazy things with their configurations, the UNIX 
FS is not a barrier. it's actually quite consistent and easy to get around 
for these folks.

therefore IMO, the FS should be optimized for _programs_ that must interact 
with files and configurations as well as for advanced users that do the same 
manually.

for everyone else: pretend the FS outside of ~/ doesn't even exist and 
concentrate on more interesting topics =)

- -- 
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

seems to me that
if i could find the right music
i'd never have to sleep again
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAJ+Fc1rcusafx20MRAtpbAKCNTucvtFIYauetSnDP+lXz0qfyWwCeMzs4
VFLkGh+zXcbzi6wMJX6cua8=
=lo53
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.userlinux.com
http://lists.userlinux.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
List administrator: bruce@perens.com 510-526-1165
Perens LLC / 1563 Solano Ave. / PMB 349 / Berkeley CA 94707 / USA

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]