Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Aug 2008 23:33 UTC, submitted by Charles Wilson
Editorial GoboLinux is a distribution which sports a different file system structure than 'ordinary' Linux distributions. In order to remain compatible with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, symbolic links are used to map the GoboLinux tree to standard UNIX directories. A post in the GoboLinux forums suggested that it might be better to turn the concept around: retain the FHS, and then use symbolic links to map the GoboLinux tree on top of it. This sparked some interesting discussion. Read on for more details.
Thread beginning with comment 327271
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Much ado about nothing
by leos on Tue 19th Aug 2008 03:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Much ado about nothing"
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

because remembering all those cryptic commands was soooo much easier than point-and-click.


Nice try trying to twist my words. Completely unrelated to what we're talking about.

Friendlier to whom?


I already said, sysadmins and programmers mostly. It's easier to type, and it avoids the issue of programs that choke on paths with spaces (yes, I still routinely encounter those at work).

for the home user and budding programmer who'd like to experiment with his system settings?


If any home user has to touch those settings, the system is broken. Changing the name to something else is not a fix, it's a band aid over a system that should never have forced a casual user into that directory. For a budding programmer, it really is no different. Except that they're going to rip their hair out when their linker gives an error like "Cannot find object c:\Program.obj" because of those paths with spaces in them.

for the starting grad student who needs to type up his thesis?


apt-get install texlive kile (or the equivalent from your favourite GUI frontend). Like I said, if that grad student needs to worry about anything outside of their home directory, the system is broken.

or for the power user who has become accustomed to the status quo and wishes all the n00bs would realize that computers are for grownups?


No, for someone who realizes that keeping track of system files is the system's job, and for someone who has better things to do than micromanage their system. Seriously, this is a non-issue for everyone but those self-professed "power users" coming from windows that are confused by change. No ordinary users could even tell the difference, and shouldn't have to.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[3]: Much ado about nothing
by dexter11 on Tue 19th Aug 2008 12:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Much ado about nothing"
dexter11 Member since:
2008-01-11

The system can keep track of the system files in a directory called "settings" not just in "etc". It can also keep track of software in "programs" and not just /usr/bin. In fact the system doesn't give a damn about the name of the directories at all. So why don't we just call them what they are used for? Don't tell me that "init.d" is better than "bootscripts". So why no change? Because the old hardcore users should learn something new?

Why I agree on keeping the track of system files are the system's job I know that systems tend to break. I hate to bring up Windows again but I think it fits here because MS is probably the biggest software company on Earth, has thousands of developers including true geniouses on its payroll. But still Windows just like all OSes tend to break. That's when it needs fixing by the user. Should I call techsupport just because my OS has cryptic directory names and I can't find my way around because of it?

Maybe there are good reasons not use a file structure of Gobo but that doesn't mean that we should keep the old one to the end of times.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Much ado about nothing
by ichi on Tue 19th Aug 2008 12:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Much ado about nothing"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

The system can keep track of the system files in a directory called "settings" not just in "etc". It can also keep track of software in "programs" and not just /usr/bin. In fact the system doesn't give a damn about the name of the directories at all. So why don't we just call them what they are used for? Don't tell me that "init.d" is better than "bootscripts". So why no change? Because the old hardcore users should learn something new?


No, because scripts in /etc/init.d aren't just bootscripts, settings in /etc don't include user settings and /usr/bin doesn't hold programs, just their binaries.

Should I call techsupport just because my OS has cryptic directory names and I can't find my way around because of it?


But is people really having problems with the classic unix names? Because I don't see such a thing happening.

We could just aswell rename "integrals" to "Calculation Of The Area Defined By A Function Between Two Given Points In A Cartesian Map", but that wouldn't make them any easier to solve, would it?

that doesn't mean that we should keep the old one to the end of times.


Agreed, but until someone comes with a good reason I'd rather stick with the current scheme.

Reply Parent Score: 3

jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

Seriously, this is a non-issue for everyone but those self-professed "power users" coming from windows that are confused by change.


Odd. I'm not a "'power user' coming from windows" in any sense of the word. I've used Linux or OSX for nearly all of the last ten years.

I doubt the Gobo Linux users fall into that category either.

If any home user has to touch those settings, the system is broken.


The fonts? The startup scripts? If a home user has to touch those setting, the system is broken?!? Whose computer is it, anyway?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Much ado about nothing
by siride on Tue 19th Aug 2008 14:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Much ado about nothing"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

There's .fonts in your home directory and any personal settings are also stored there. The only time you need to touch stuff in /etc is to configure services beyond the default and any user-friendly distro out there has GUI tools to do configuration in /etc. If you are advanced enough to need to do stuff beyond what the GUI tools provide, then you are advanced enough to deal with the fact that it is called '/etc' and not '/hold my hand settings directory for users to look at system settings and other things like that'.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Much ado about nothing
by leos on Tue 19th Aug 2008 14:35 in reply to "RE[3]: Much ado about nothing"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

The fonts? The startup scripts? If a home user has to touch those setting, the system is broken?!? Whose computer is it, anyway?


Someone else already mentioned ~/.fonts
You shouldn't have to mess with the startup scripts. If you want a program starting in the GUI, use the GUI tools in Gnome or KDE to start it after boot. If you want to configure a system service to start (already extremely unlikely for any average user), use any startup script GUI tool to do it.

If you want to tweak the settings of apache to start with a specified flag or what have you, you're way advanced and finding init.d is a trivial and insignificant part of the task.

Reply Parent Score: 3