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 327376
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Much ado about nothing
by Morty on Tue 19th Aug 2008 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Much ado about nothing"
Morty
Member since:
2005-07-06

I refer you to my previous comment that .fonts is a hidden directory which the average user will not stumble over.


Why should anyone(expect developers and distribution makers) care where the fonts are located? Hidden directory or some kind of magic location, like a fonts folder, are just as pointless. Just right click and select to install it, either as a system or user font. The MIME types should also handles this, and start a font installer when font files are clicked.

Obsessive micro management like this are just pointless, let the system handle it. Average users have more than enough work handling their documents and other user files to be bothered with system files. And for developers the FSH are already handles this in a logical, robust, proven and well known manner.

Edited 2008-08-19 17:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

Why should anyone(expect developers and distribution makers) care where the fonts are located?


Since everyone is so offended that I want to install fonts in a place that I can remember easily, and can't be bothered to address the actual problem being illustrated, let's try another example from experience.

Distribution D naturally installs application A to some directory (/usr/share say). You want the more recent version (many distributions take a while to update certain software after all) so "yum erase A" or "apt-get erase A" or whatever, download the tarball from A.org, and run "./configure; make; make install". But for some mysterious reason A's system installs the software into /usr/local/share, not /usr/share. You spend a while trying to figure out why A claims to have installed without a complaint while giving you all kinds of file not found errors when you actually try to run it. Eventually you figure it out, or maybe you don't.

I suppose this is also an example of micromanagement on my part?

The article gives plenty other examples, like shell scripts breaking. Also micromanagement I suppose?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Much ado about nothing
by Morty on Tue 19th Aug 2008 21:46 in reply to "RE[7]: Much ado about nothing"
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06


Since everyone is so offended that I want to install fonts in a place that I can remember easily,

Not offended, simply pointing out your argument are based on an incorrect assumptation.

and can't be bothered to address the actual problem being illustrated,

Trying to construct a problem to support a conclusion you have decided is correct, does not necessary illustrate anything needing addressing.


Distribution D naturally installs application A to some directory (/usr/share say). [snip]

run "./configure; make; make install". But for some mysterious reason A's system installs the software into /usr/local/share, not /usr/share.

The application will be in, or linked from a bin/ directory, which should be in the PATH negating the need to know the location of the application to run it. Obviously if the application installer is not broken, it keeps track of its datafiles and everything else located in the share/ directory.


I suppose this is also an example of micromanagement on my part?

No, only broken assumptations on your part.

like shell scripts breaking. Also micromanagement I suppose?

If shellscripts use absolute paths to application, I'd say it's micromanagement. Also called a bug, if the script is intended for general usage.

If it's done to customize to a specific installation, you need to adapt to the system customization and install applications accordingly(use --prefix).

Edited 2008-08-19 21:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3