Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th May 2012 14:55 UTC
General Unix James Hague: "But all the little bits of complexity, all those cases where indecision caused one option that probably wasn't even needed in the first place to be replaced by two options, all those bad choices that were never remedied for fear of someone somewhere having to change a line of code... They slowly accreted until it all got out of control, and we got comfortable with systems that were impossible to understand." Counterpoint by John Cook: "Some of the growth in complexity is understandable. It's a lot easier to maintain an orthogonal design when your software isn't being used. Software that gets used becomes less orthogonal and develops diagonal shortcuts." If there's ever been a system in dire need of a complete redesign, it's UNIX and its derivatives. A mess doesn't even begin to describe it (for those already frantically reaching for the comment button, note that this applies to other systems as well).
Permalink for comment 519629
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Re:
by Kebabbert on Sun 27th May 2012 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re:"
Member since:

Why? What's the benefit?

Simple. Amateur user sees HDD1:Folder/image1.jpg and HDD2:image2.jpg and immediately understands what's going on. User sees /Folder/image1.jpg and says "Da freak is this? Okay, I guess / is the hardrive i installed the OS or something, because this is were my usr directory is" Then he sees /mnt/hdd2/image2.jpg and says "Why is my second harddisk a subdirectory under my first harddisk? What's that mnt folder? Waahhh, I don't understand what's going on!" See, most people don't know the concept of "mounting", and good luck explaning it to them before their attention span ends. As you say, GUIs try (and partially) solve this problem by making it appear a if Unix/Linux has multiple roots, by Gnome still has a "filesystem" button that will expose the nastyness and confuse the user. IMO all GUIs should completely hide from users the fact Unix doesn't have multiple roots, by replacing "/" with HDD1: and /mnt/hdd2 with HDD2: and hiding the mnt folder, and have a switch somewhere in the settings that old timers can activate to get the real filesystem back (if you know how the Unix filesystem works, you should know the button).

Now this suggestion is really bad. The main point, the single reason of using a tree (as in filesystem tree) is to have one root. You dont want a forest. You want one root, one mount point.

The algorithms/programming will be much more elegant and less bugs, if you have one root. If you have several roots, a forest of independent filesystems, then your program need to find out how many roots there are, and then run on each root. You have lost elegancy and require additional steps (how many roots are there) before you can run your program.

If you have a single root, with several mount points, the algorithm/programming will be unified and simplified. You just start to run on the root, and it will automatically traverse every node.

Windows works the way you describe. You have C: D: E: ... Z:. Now, let me ask you, where do you find the database server? On which disk? Where are all source code? On which disk? Easy to answer, right? Very intuitive, right? One company might use E: another uses Z:. No standard, a new user needs to traverse and examine each drive. Very very very ugly.

Compare to Unix. /opt/database. Or /opt/sourcecode. One root. You always know where to start. In Windows, do you start at D:? Or L:?

A programmer knowledgeable in algorithm theory, always prefer a single tree. The reason you propose your ugly suggestion, is because you are not a computer scientist, that is obvious. If you study some computer science, you will change mind set and understand how beatiful trees can be, and how they simplify the algorithms and programming very much. Recursion is extremely powerful, and makes elegant simple solutions.

Reply Parent Score: 3