Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th May 2009 19:17 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Ask OSNews is apparently quite popular among you guys; the questions just keep on coming in. Since David took on the first two, we decided to let me handle this one - it's an area I've personally covered before on OSNews: file system layouts. One of our readers, a Linux veteran, studied the GoboLinux effort to introduce a new filesystem layout, and wondered: "Why not adopt the more sensible file system from GoboLinux as the new LSB standard?"
Permalink for comment 365979
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Why not a middle ground?
by foljs on Fri 29th May 2009 08:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why not a middle ground?"
Member since:

To put it more bluntly: the constant aim to lure these imagined idiot users will lead to idiotic decisions, which will eventually lead to idiot system that can no longer be used for tasks it used to do well.

There is a clear rational behind Gobo's reorganization of the file system. Could it be done better? Probably, open to discussion.

"Idiotic decision" is not an engineering term, however, and you do not provide any technical arguments.

What is a fact, and not open to discussion, though is that the UNIX FS organization is a legacy, 40 year old system, and that it was designed with constraints and concerns in mind that do not exist today and/or are not suitable for a desktop system. From shortening the names of folders, to mixing programs in the same directory (/usr/bin) with no concern for namespace separation.

Even the creators of the original UNIX did one better with Plan 9 and fs namespaces. And there are 40 years of FS and usability academic advancements and practical implementations that HAVE NOT BEEN introduced to the legacy unix fs standard.

That is essentially my (admittedly overblown) fear about these crazy ideas that are thrown because of the perceived problems with usability. Changing the FHS is a prime example of this.

And again you provide no argument (technical argument) why it is "a prime example".


Reply Parent Score: 1