Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Aug 2008 15:37 UTC
Editorial Earlier this week, we ran a story on GoboLinux, and the distribution's effort to replace the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard with a more pleasant, human-readable, and logical design. A lot of people liked the idea of modernising/replacing the FHS, but just as many people were against doing so. Valid arguments were presented both ways, but in this article, I would like to focus on a common sentiment that came forward in that discussion: normal users shouldn't see the FHS, and advanced users are smart enough to figure out how the FHS works.
Thread beginning with comment 327847
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
devurandom
Member since:
2005-07-06

The fact is, everyone using English means everyone using a standard.

A standard is always better than no standard.

Natural, homeland language is all good and well (heck, I like Italian more than English) for personal talk purposes. But when a standard is required, a standard should be enforced.

Why someone wants to make a complex system to allow for non-standards, when people could just be teached the standard (and such a standard is useful for much,much more than simply reading filesystem hierarchies) again escapes my comprehension.

Reply Parent Score: 2

wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

The fact is, everyone using English means everyone using a standard.

A standard is always better than no standard.



I have issues with both sentences. English is not a true standard, it's just a "de-facto" standard, much like the MS Office file formats.

Your complaint seems to be that people can't leave politics aside and pick whatever looks like a dominating option as a standard. But standards are all about politics, that's the whole point, IMO: a good standard must be perceived as common ground by all the parties conforming the standard's intended audience.

A true standard should be carefully designed with input from all the interested parties, beginning with a minimal common ground and then building upon it, trying to keep it simple, fair and balanced. Whenever possible, if parties disagree on how to do or how to express something, the standard should provide means for each party to specify their chosen option, rather than picking one of the competing solutions.

A bad standard may well be worse than no standard. At least a no-standards situation is fair, so it's a much better starting point for building good standards.

Of course you can ignore all of this, take the dominant player's caprices and call them standards. And then wonder why on earth so many people don't adhere to them.




Natural, homeland language is all good and well (heck, I like Italian more than English) for personal talk purposes. But when a standard is required, a standard should be enforced.

Why someone wants to make a complex system to allow for non-standards, when people could just be teached the standard (and such a standard is useful for much,much more than simply reading filesystem hierarchies) again escapes my comprehension.


Again, calling English "the standard" begs the question . English, the standard.. says who?. In my view, it's just the dominant player's option in a no-true-standards situation. The "complex" (not really) system I propose is an attempt at creating a standard, one that lets people agree to disagree and still communicate. Again, It only seems odd because modern computing was developed in a largely mono-lingual environment. If it had been an international (and inter-lingual) effort from the beginning, locale-agnostic provisions would seem only natural.

Regarding direct human (spoken and written) communication, learning a second language up to near-native level is *hard*. As long as the "standard" language is native for some of its speakers and not for others, the native speakers have a *huge* advantage. The only way that a particular natural language could work as a fair standard is that all the other languages were effectively eliminated, so that this "standard" were everyone's first language. Given that other strategies are available or at least conceivable (auxiliary languages like Esperanto, real-time translation), is it so surprising that many of the affected societies resist this trend?

Reply Parent Score: 2

devurandom Member since:
2005-07-06


I have issues with both sentences. English is not a true standard, it's just a "de-facto" standard, much like the MS Office file formats.


MS Office is not a good standard because it is not free and it is undocumented.

English is both free and documented.

So it's a wrong comparison.

A true standard should be carefully designed with input from all the interested parties, beginning with a minimal common ground and then building upon it, trying to keep it simple, fair and balanced. Whenever possible, if parties disagree on how to do or how to express something, the standard should provide means for each party to specify their chosen option, rather than picking one of the competing solutions.


A de facto standard is not always a bad standard. Take Linux, for example: it's hard from being standard, formally, but it's a good example of a de facto free standard in the Unix world.

The only problem with usual de facto standards, like Office file formats, is that they are nor free nor documented. If these file formats were free and documented, I'd have no problem in using them.

In my view, it's just the dominant player's option in a no-true-standards situation.


In scientific contexts, for example, English is the required de facto standard. No serious journal publishes something in a language other than English.
The same holds for a lot of other disciplines.

*All* language standards emerged as de facto dominant players. It has been Greek, Latin, then German, then French, and now is English. One day maybe it will be Chinese, who knows.

Regarding direct human (spoken and written) communication, learning a second language up to near-native level is *hard*. As long as the "standard" language is native for some of its speakers and not for others, the native speakers have a *huge* advantage.


Please. I'm not talking about writing all newspapers, novels and so on in English. I'm not saying I want to eliminate all languages (in fact, I'd like language diversity to be saved as a value). But there are contexts in which it is better to know a bit of a standard language instead of relying on your own language. Technical contexts, in which technical information has to be shared worldwide, is one of them.

Also, anyway pushing those people learning the current de facto standard language can be hard, but it is an enormous advantage for those people that goes much, much further than simply being able to read computer documentation.

is it so surprising that many of the affected societies resist this trend?


They are not resisting any trend. Quite the contrary. English teaching is compulsory in most, if not all developed countries, and probably also in most non-developed ones. Here in Italy there's a lot of concern on the relative illiteracy in English of our population. I guess in a couple of generations a substantial part of humankind will be mostly (also) English speaking (if another language does not jump in as the new de facto standard).

Reply Parent Score: 2