To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
> 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"!
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?
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.
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.
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.





Member since:
2005-07-06
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.