Ask OSNews is apparently quite popular among you guys; the questions just keep on coming in. Since David took on the first two, we decided to let me handle this one - it's an area I've personally covered before on OSNews: file system layouts. One of our readers, a Linux veteran, studied the GoboLinux effort to introduce a new filesystem layout, and wondered: "Why not adopt the more sensible file system from GoboLinux as the new LSB standard?"
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2009-05-20
Agreed.
To put it more bluntly: the constant aim to lure these imagined idiot users will lead to idiotic decisions, which will eventually lead to idiot system that can no longer be used for tasks it used to do well.
That is essentially my (admittedly overblown) fear about these crazy ideas that are thrown because of the perceived problems with usability. Changing the FHS is a prime example of this.
Does anyone remember the car designed by Homer Simpson?
Member since:2006-01-09
There is a clear rational behind Gobo's reorganization of the file system. Could it be done better? Probably, open to discussion.
"Idiotic decision" is not an engineering term, however, and you do not provide any technical arguments.
What is a fact, and not open to discussion, though is that the UNIX FS organization is a legacy, 40 year old system, and that it was designed with constraints and concerns in mind that do not exist today and/or are not suitable for a desktop system. From shortening the names of folders, to mixing programs in the same directory (/usr/bin) with no concern for namespace separation.
Even the creators of the original UNIX did one better with Plan 9 and fs namespaces. And there are 40 years of FS and usability academic advancements and practical implementations that HAVE NOT BEEN introduced to the legacy unix fs standard.
And again you provide no argument (technical argument) why it is "a prime example".
HUGE FAIL.
Member since:2008-04-04
The FHS is not the only example of Linux becoming an idiot box. Nor can windows be used as that. Windows has so many problems. But Linux has as well.
The idiox box is actually superimposed by decision makers, like those that do create Udev/Hal/Policykit crap.
I wouldn't complain IF their solutions would be dead solid and helpful for the user.
But they f--k him up, and ignore complaints. They are like a global Ulrich Drepper movement against users. And let's not forget that distributions first try to fix problems for themselves. Many dont even report upstream at all. Now what actually is the real idiot box here? The end user, or distributions who are selfish?
I will gauge what both distributions AND developers do, and comment on it. You have to appreciate good work certainly. But why should you not bitch at bad work or silly standards? Why is it that people are not that happy at glibc for example and that the company that puts most effort into glibc obviously doesn't care about complaints?
Linux has become an idiot box - it caters to newcomers, it gives them ready-made solutions, it is steered by COMPANIES - or in certain situations by some developers - but if you as end user try to deviate from the official path, you are not only on your own, people will try to convince you that your path is bad and thus wrong. Projects like LFS are a lot more important. But LFS does not go far enough.
Too many advanced Linux users are fanatical people who try to make everyone follow their way. And if you point out that their way has problems, most of them get mad.
Member since:2009-05-28
I never stated that Windows users are idiots... It's you that have given those people who find computers in general confusing the title... I know PhDs who are afraid of "breaking" a computer and thus will not install an application or update a computer (click on the gold thing in the task bar) without massive amounts of assistance... These users are not idiots. They simply don't understand, don't want to understand, and are generally afraid of the risks of performing tasks on a computer. My position is is the following:
1. The GNU/Linux file system works very well, especially when APPLICATION developers follow the rules for file placement.
2. Anyone who is a Linux hobbyist or Linux developer does not "need" greater transparency in the FS than is already present since the technical knowledge needed to locate "hard to find" files is already well developed.
3. Wasting valuable limited resources tackling a perceived problem versus a real problem is harmful to the overall achievement of real world progress and adoption of GNU/Linux as a general computer user Desktop Platform.
4. The point of changing the FS is muted because there is no way to enforce general adoption of the current rules within the current FS let alone a new FS with "simpler" nomenclature.
5. Stick with the current FS, and develop apps like mad so that GNU/Linux will continue to be better and badder with each release of each distro.
Member since:2006-05-12
Member since:
2006-05-12
Your comment only further reinforces my point. You state that the windows users you know are idiots that never do anything outside of basic tasks. What you overlooked was the fact that they are not Linux users, you are.
Most the people who install and evaluate Linux but decide to keep booting Windows are far more like you and me then the people that view us as guru's.
I think there is a large number of hobbyists out there who more accurately fit the profile of a potential Linux user than the windows users you described.
I have met /thousands/ of semi technical users IRL who are not just clueless morons who have installed/used/evaluated Linux at some point but decided to keep booting windows for varying reasons.
Maybe your experiences are different, but the majority of the people I know who regularly use a computer are also able to point and click through a windows software install.
If you are designing a Linux distro with idiots in mind that cant click next > next > finish in a windows software install and ignoring hobbyists you are doing it wrong. It is that simple. For the love of god, can we drop the idea that Linux users don't need to explore outside of /home?
For home computing, user = administrator. Your "admin" installs applications on your home desktop for you like your dentist brushes your teeth for you every morning.