Linked by Kevin Adams on Fri 9th May 2003 23:04 UTC
Linux "Lately, there has been lots of discussion on the current state of Linux as a desktop system, and articles pop up here and there, occasionally with very good ideas. However, none have surprised me more than this one. It was all very hyphothetical, but had pretty radical ideas on how the author thought the Linux directory tree should be reorganized." Read more about GoboLinux, a Linux distro that uses a new style directory tree at Kuro5hin.org.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Re:
by Nicolai on Sat 10th May 2003 18:14 UTC

Re Ken Lynch:
You could easily create such a programs menu on top of any other system - either a fancy new one or the current one (though I'd say it would be easier on the fancy new one, one directory per package).

I don't think the programs menu _itself_ should be the "package management", for two main reasons:
- it wouldn't work well in the console, and
- it definitely wouldn't work in multi-user systems (different users want to organize their programs menu differently).


Re Err:
As you have outlined, there are basically two categories in which the server and desktop environments differ:

1. Usability (esp. ease of third party app installation, as far as this thread is concerned).
Server don't need this as much, but desktops - especially home desktops - do. Improving usability may not be important for servers, but it certainly needn't _hurt_ the server environment (unless security is compromised by moronic defaults), so there's not really a problem there, just lots of inertia (= people who are afraid of change).

2. Performance profile.
It's generally true that desktops, especially multimedia desktops, require better latency, but maybe not quite as much throughput, and it's also true that improvements in one area can really hurt the other.
On the other hand, look at the work that's been done in the 2.5.x kernel series. A lot of stuff has been going on to improve latency.
Additionally, I think somebody's working on pluggable schedulers, so the problem isn't as big as you make it seem - just drop in the scheduler you need (but feel free to correct me, I'm not sure).

P.S.: I really don't think the "office desktop users don't need responsiveness" thing is true. What about office desktops that are used in multimedia companies, for example?