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 327864
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by dagw on Sun 24th Aug 2008 23:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
dagw
Member since:
2005-07-06

For example, simply moving all user binary files to one directory with a human readable name makes the system more simple and prevents bugs, and it doesn't sacrifice any features.

I fail to see what bugs that would prevent or what problems would be significantly easier to fix. Not that it's necessarily a bad idea, but I fail to see what you win.

If you're going to do something like that, why not go all the way and use a solution closer to what OS X uses.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Mon 25th Aug 2008 02:21 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Luminair"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

> I fail to see what bugs that would prevent or what problems would be significantly easier to fix.

man, how much software depends on the file system?

making the file system easier to work with will affect every upstream software, from package managers to Open File dialogs.

Where is smb.conf on my computer? Can you help me with it? File search says there are two. Do you know why? Come on, give me a break. The complexity of the linux file system design is causing headaches in places we cannot even comprehend.

I just searched the firefox bugzilla for the first relevant thing to come to mind, "usr". There are too many bugs to display. I just picked one: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=246672

I've seen bugs like that for longer than I can remember. Mozilla.org released builds should look for plugins in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins. SuSE uses /usr/lib/browser-plugins, according to Hendikins. Someone in FC2 reported the plugins were in mozilla-1.6/plugins, and mozilla/plugins was empty. Holy shit, lets get some standards that make sense.

How many bugs would have never existed it present unnecessary complexity never existed? It might be possible to guess. My guess is a lot. How many tech support problems would have been easier without that complexity? Again my guess is "a lot"!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Luminair
by dagw on Mon 25th Aug 2008 11:09 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Luminair"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

making the file system easier to work with will affect every upstream software, from package managers to Open File dialogs.

Sure, but dumping all binaries in a a single folder? Also do you consider libraries to binaries? Are plug-ins binaries, libraries or something else?

Where is smb.conf on my computer? Can you help me with it? File search says there are two. Do you know why?

Yes. Of course you could argue that most people shouldn't need to care where smb.conf is located, or even what smb.conf even is. They should be using supplied tools to interact with that file. Those who actually need to edit smb.conf by hand should be knowledgeable enough about what they're doing to know which smb.conf file they should be editing. Otherwise they stand a good chance of breaking their system.

Come on, give me a break. The complexity of the linux file system design is causing headaches in places we cannot even comprehend.

That complexity also gives power and flexibility that some people need. There are situations where you actually want several smb.conf files. Admittedly most people don't, but those who do should still have the option. One of Linux's strength is that complex and uncommon configurations are relatively easy to pull of compared to for example Windows. Any improvements made, should be made without sacrificing this strength.

But I agree that things could be a lot better. However we shouldn't simplify things to the point where the uncommon, yet occasionally useful, configurations become impossible.
Holy shit, lets get some standards that make sense.

Again I agree, but dumping everything into one folder isn't the solution. Things are a bit of a mess, but a flatter file system with everything in one folder isn't the solution.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Luminair
by devurandom on Mon 25th Aug 2008 13:17 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Luminair"
devurandom Member since:
2005-07-06

Where is smb.conf on my computer? Can you help me with it?


locate smb.conf

File search says there are two.


This means *your own* system is messy. My Gentoo Linux system has only one smb.conf , as sanely expected.

Reply Parent Score: 2