Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th May 2009 19:17 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 366043
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I don't like different things in FHS
by ephemient on Fri 29th May 2009 15:03
in reply to "I don't like different things in FHS"
Not FHS, but there exists the XDG Base Directory Specification, which addresses your point 1:
User-specific configuration files go in $XDG_CONFIG_HOME = ~/.config/ instead of cluttering ~/.?*.
It also specifies $XDG_DATA_HOME = ~/.local/share/, for data resources like user-specific menu entries, and $XDG_DATA_HOME = ~/.cache/.
As far as I've seen, the newer programs and toolkits using these XDG directories do a good job of keeping their stuff organized. For example, you can "rm -rf ~/.config/vlc ~/.local/share/vlc ~/.cache/vlc" with confidence that VLC doesn't have any junk lying elsewhere, and that you're not affecting any other programs.
RE: I don't like different things in FHS
by Luminair on Sat 30th May 2009 08:47
in reply to "I don't like different things in FHS"




Member since:
2008-06-07
I think FHS is actually pretty well designed for a general machine. There is no reason why _user_ should be able to get to the root of hierarchy in Linux, especially since there is a mount and symbolic links (of which SUBST and ASSIGN are stupid counterparts).
But I have two personal issues with FHS:
1. Configuration files (.*) in home directory; I would prefer something like ~/etc or even ~/.etc for this; but many applications rely on this.
2. Some third-party applications may have problems, if they don't use package manager. But this isn't really an FSB problem, as there should be standard API to all package managers which 3rd party apps could use (like InstallShield in Windows).