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 365999
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by DoctorD
by DoctorD on Fri 29th May 2009 10:55 UTC
DoctorD
Member since:
2009-03-08

Regarding FSH, yes, it could be improved quite a bit. But is it really worth the massive effort for something the user shouldn't be messing with in the first place?


Stop right there. There's the problem. That whole perspective is the issue several of us have a problem with.

Someone else already summed up the issue quite nicely:

I have yet to meet a single Linux user that never tried to dig deeper than files in /home, so for the sake of sanity could we please stop generalizing the mythical "user" in this way?

There is this perception that the mythical home user needs to know absolutely nothing because they all have a mythical "admin" totally at their disposal with an answer for everything. This could not be farther from the truth.

This complete misunderstanding of who the end user is makes meeting end user needs pretty difficult.


Very well said. Applies to my last 5 years of using *nix systems really well, because I've found you almost inevitably have to utilize the file system at some point (and quite often several) whether someone else thinks you ought to or not. Mouse back/forward buttons, getting your graphics to work, hell, even getting videos to play all require a leap into FHS.


The FHS is the only filesystem layout design which is sane for now.


Well... geez... I hadn't thought of that... How do you even kind of counter such a statement? It not only smacks of ignorance, it's hilariously cocky. You must be absolutely in the dark about why anyone like myself wants to see the FHS replaced with something else in desktop oriented systems. You must really and honestly have no idea whatsoever. Heck, I honestly can not even fathom what you must do with your computer on a day to day basis that warrants such a statement. Such ignorance of any perspective other then your own. Is it that hard to at least toy with someone else's idea?

People do not respect the history of UNIX anymore?


Geez. Is this a religion now? I grasp other people's concepts pretty well, but that statement is just full of wtf... full of axiomic, non-thinking loyalty to tradition that I just don't agree with one iota.

40 years? I care not. Who the #$%& cares about tradition. Base arguments off of merit alone. Consider just how long some of the crazy religious beliefs you likely disagree with have been around. Consider how the US uses gallons, feet, and miles rather then the metric system. Consider how embarrassing we are going into the 21st century when the norm is propulsion via limited supplies of dinosaur flesh being burned in motors powering convoluted transmissions systems with arrays of gears, necessitating cooling systems and alternators and oil pumps and countless other moving parts which break down and require virtually never-ending maintenance throughout the life of the vehicle. Conservative types (speaking relatively, not politically) can bark all they want about "years of experience", when all along they could have been developing electric powered vehicles since the day Tesla developed the first AC motor over 100 years ago. It's well known that they can be vastly more efficient, cost a whole lot less to drive, can easily exceed standard horsepower and torque, have almost no moving parts (other then givens like axels and the AC motor), virtually eliminate smog when used en mass, and can be powered by virtually any source of energy which can be converted into electricity... not just sludge pulled out of holes in the ground. And people are just now starting to warm up to the idea. You get the idea.

In summation, I couldn't care less about the whole "tradition plays an important role in whether or not something is worthwhile" line of thought.

Edited 2009-05-29 11:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by DoctorD
by strcpy on Fri 29th May 2009 11:27 in reply to "Comment by DoctorD"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Geez.

You are probably the kind of guy who is willing to throw out, say, POSIX and TCP/IP and C99 and whatnot because, well, geez, standards sux.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: Comment by DoctorD
by DoctorD on Fri 29th May 2009 17:30 in reply to "RE: Comment by DoctorD"
DoctorD Member since:
2009-03-08

You are probably the kind of guy who is willing to throw out, say, POSIX and TCP/IP and C99 and whatnot because, well, geez, standards sux.


While your stupidity amazes me, your ability to withstand thinking about my main points for 2 seconds actually makes my nose bleed.

Edited 2009-05-29 17:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by DoctorD
by prime107 on Fri 29th May 2009 12:42 in reply to "Comment by DoctorD"
prime107 Member since:
2009-05-28

Electric cars suck! Internal combustion engines rule! Give me a big block Chevy muscle car and cheap American made gasoline and a 1/4 mile! Cars should sound as dangerous as they are as well! Down with the metro-centric ideas of smaller, quieter, more efficient!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by DoctorD
by AdamW on Fri 29th May 2009 15:26 in reply to "RE: Comment by DoctorD"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

prime107: while we're doing car analogies - this proposal is like saying "jeez, the current layout of car controls sucks. We should turn all the pedals and levers into simple buttons that surround the driver on all sides. What? People have already learned how to drive their cars and are quite used to it? Well that's just TOO BAD, the new system will be way more elegant!"

Reply Parent Score: 3