Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th May 2009 19:17 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes 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?"
Thread beginning with comment 365976
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What's a File System?
by foljs on Fri 29th May 2009 07:58 UTC in reply to "What's a File System?"
foljs
Member since:
2006-01-09

I have yet to find ANY non developer type person who has complained about the file system needing to be more transparent to them.


Then you do not know enough people. Get out of your server room more.

Heck, even do a simple google search for complaints of CASUAL users of trying to install or uninstall or edit this or that thing and needing access to some files in the filesystem, but being unable to find them.

Like, "where's this foo.ini file the documentation talks about" etc.

Being able to make something more coherent and re-design an 30 year old legacy design to be simpler and more efficient and remove legacy accumulated craft and not doing it IS A CRIME AGAINST COMPUTING.

Mostly due to conditioning and the Stockholm Syndrome.

Just because you "understand" the historical factors inherent in the design of the FHS does not mean that they are justified. It only means that they were compromised people once had to make, and that we now follow due to sheepishness, inertia, and fear of breaking backwards compatibility.

Sheepish adherence to backwards compatibility (and historical craft) is what made Windows an ad-hoc mess, and what keeps UNUX/Linux an adhoc mess.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: What's a File System?
by asmoore82 on Sat 30th May 2009 04:30 in reply to "RE: What's a File System?"
asmoore82 Member since:
2009-03-11

Being able to make something more coherent and re-design an 30 year old legacy design to be simpler and more efficient and remove legacy accumulated craft and not doing it IS A CRIME AGAINST COMPUTING.

Mostly due to conditioning and the Stockholm Syndrome.

Just because you "understand" the historical factors inherent in the design of the FHS does not mean that they are justified. It only means that they were compromised people once had to make, and that we now follow due to sheepishness, inertia, and fear of breaking backwards compatibility.


It can't possibly be because people need to use those features that have been built in and refined over the years, can it? Of course not, there is absolutely nothing that computers have been used for over the last 40 years that they are still used for today. No, in the world of "tomorrow, Today" they only need to look pretty and check facebook, right?

To Hell with those 1000's of deployments out there with /usr, /etc, and /home seamlessly mounted over the network!!

To Hell with those 100's of commercial vendors, 1000's of System Administrators, 10000's of certified professionals, 100000's of package maintainers, and 1000000's of developers!!

You know better than all of them, right?

Who cares if it screws up compatibility for embedded hospital equipment, assembly line machinery, and the power grid??
Damnit! We must make it easier for
Grandma to grep the filesystem, right?

Reply Parent Score: 1