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: Nicolai
by Troels on Sat 10th May 2003 18:29 UTC

In order to find out which programs are installed, or to remove installed ones, the user must look _somehwere_, and they have to know _where_. So in effect, they have to know _where_ the programs are installed. This doesn't mean that this "where" is inside the filesystem.

He should of course be able to get this information, easily and quickly. However, who says that this is best done by looking in the filesystem? There is a lot of information that one might want about a program that is not in any way visible in the filesystem.

What does the program do? Which libraries does it require? Which extra functionality can it get if you install some optional extra packages?

Again i think this information should be abstracted, and not presented as a filesystem.

Just think about it: No more troubles with broken/inconsistent databases.

Never happened to me, unless i did something silly myself, in which case it is my own fault (rpm -i --nodeps --force for instance)

No more troubles mixing distribution-supplied packages with manually compiled ones (ever tried to compile a library yourself, and then install a program that depends on that library using a distro-supplied package?).

Yes i have, i put my own compiled stuff in /usr/local, and yes, that can create problems. But this is hardly what the idea behind the change is trying to address, and i believe this could be fixed within the package management system.


No more troubles with inofficial packages. Yes, this _will_ make life easier.

Yeah right. You will still have a hell of a problem matching programs from different distros. Just think about glibc and gcc differences for one thing. Besides, if the distro packages are FHS compliant, then there shouldnt be much problem, unless the packager set silly dependencies.

---

My oppinion still stands, i find this a step backwards and people thinking in the old traditional Windows way of doing things, instead of thinking about making it better than what we had 8 years ago.