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 327320
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Much ado about nothing
by dexter11 on Tue 19th Aug 2008 12:07 UTC 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

RE[5]: Much ado about nothing
by dexter11 on Tue 19th Aug 2008 17:34 in reply to "RE[4]: Much ado about nothing"
dexter11 Member since:
2008-01-11

IMHO even leaving the current dir structure intact but renaming the directories would make it more intuitive and more user friendly.

But is people really having problems with the classic unix names? Because I don't see such a thing happening.
I do. A lot of times I try to help a newbie I have to give a short introduction to FHS. Why is it better to learn what e.g. the etc directory contains instead of just knowing what's in a dir just by looking at its name?

Reply Parent Score: 1