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 327304
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Do we care? Really?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 19th Aug 2008 09:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Do we care? Really?"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

This has nothing to do with the existing file system standard, and everything to do with the distributitions package management system. If you were an advanced users you'd know this.


FHS doesn't facilitate it either. That's the whole point: sure, it's possible to achieve many things with the FHS, but it wasn't built for it, and it shows. Applications have their files all over the place, and managing multiple instances of such a program is extremely difficult.

Sure, I can cook my dinner on a camp fire in my backyard, but I prefer doing it in my kitchen with all the appliances waiting for me. FHS is the camp fire - we need to create a kitchen with the appliances. Mac OS X has taken a few steps in the right direction, but its still a bloody mess.

Many distributions already offer such functionality, especially in the form of libraries. all that needs to be done is to append a trailing version number and perhaps a utility which creates a symlink to the desired version.


Thank you for proving my point. You call this elegant? This is yet another piece of band-aid applied to fix an inherently outdated system. Compare your band-aid solution to my much more elegant proposals:

http://www.osnews.com/story/19711/The_Utopia_of_Program_Management

The reason my solution is much more elegant is because I designed it with all those advanced features in mind, instead of trying to bolt them on afterwards in a shoddy fashion. As someone else already painfully noted, Linux/UNIX fanatics are eager to point out that Windows is stuck with old and outdated ways, but in fact, the UNIX world is much worse off.

Reply Parent Score: 6