"I was impressed by the way GoboLinux handled. This distribution clearly has a well-defined identity of its own, and the authors' philosophy shows in every detail of the system. The system is fast, without a grain of bloat in it." GoboLinux' most defining feature is its filesystem layout, which does not follow the Free Standards Group's Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, but is more like OSX' layout.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
1) well there are inventigations into alternatives. like say unionfs. still, using ls -l helps in figuring out those links.
2) hey, even os x have that old fs layout there. only that os x hides it on the file manager level, while gobo have to use a kernel module to do so. this to enable it to play nice with all the diffrent file managers out there.
3) the dev tree us mounted under /system and symlinked to the / iirc...
Member since:2005-11-04
1) There is no mess of links. Executables all have links in /System/Links/Executables, libs in /System/Links/Libraries,... you get the point. There's an exception and that is that settings are linked in /System/Settings.
2) There is not a chance that a small dist like that would have the possibility to patch every program that has hard coded paths in it. I do not even think that a larger dist would have that possibility. The old one is hidden from the user and is never used; it's only there for compability reasons
3) /System/Kernel/Devices, there's an equivalent for everything.
Member since:2005-07-06
Mmm, personally I don't mod down on the content of the post (it's your opinion wether I agree or not is irrelevant) but on the form: if it's insulting, then I mod down.
Now on your post about the giant mess of links, either you get a mess of:
a) directories with very long PATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, etc.
b) files within directories: with everything in a few select location, which is the current 'normal Linux way'.
c) links as in Gobo Linux way.
So either way it's a mess, which is 'normal': there are many, many applications so somehow they must be organised..
I think that c) is better than b) for applications, for shared libraries, I don't know how they're handled on Gobo and it's always the hard part..
Member since:
It's a wonder I haven't already; it's happened before.
Off the top of my head:
1) the giant mess of links
2) the old fs layout is still present along with the new (either pick one or the other, not both!)
3) old fs layout is required for some tasks (as far as I can tell, there is no /dev equivalent in the new layout)
-bytecoder