http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/item/12137/
[-19 votes] Solution #1: Auto-generated solution of idea #12137


]]> en-us Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:00:48 +0000 Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:35:44 +0000 QAPoll module http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/12137/ http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/12137/
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/12073/
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/940/

And I already told that I dont want to mix configuration and binaries in my text editor.

Oh, and by the way it took me 20 seconds to find thoses reports, typing gobo in the research field. please stop spamming brainstorm.]]> Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:13:36 +0000
if you think well, if you have to deal with folders like usr, bin, share, ... you're no more a newbie or something is going wrong.
]]> Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:36:45 +0000
The argument is that new users don't understand the current filesystem unless it is explained. New users also don't understand APT's sources.list, the network interfaces file, etc. but those aren't proposed for change since there are GUIs to look after them so users don't need to know how they work. Well the filesystem is looked after by the package manager, and we have plenty of GUIs for it (Add/Remove, Synaptic, Adept, etc.) so I see this as a solution to a problem which does not exist.

Even if it was desirable to have applications organised in such a way, accessible from a file browser, it could be done with FUSE without touching the current system. I, however, don't see that happening since there's no need.]]> Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:41:49 +0000
The problem is that they way things are set up sucks. And everyone can see that it sucks, its not even hidden.

The solution is that we do like OS X and just hide everything except for what is directly pertinent to a user.

Or, we do like Windows and clean house a little bit.]]> Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:49:44 +0000 Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:57:45 +0000
The reality is, even pro users are finding the filesystem layout to be problematic. Face the facts, the filesystem layout is crap, and needs to be replaced with something better, and totally flexible.

Even windows doesn't require hard-coded filesystem locations these days. ]]> Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:18:18 +0000 the regular user never needs to know that. You should never chose where to install a program, you should never have to find where a program is through these stupid "open with..." windows. All this stuff is the package manager business, not yours. If you want to install Firefox and OpenOffice in different directories on your desktop computer, then it is simply that the bug is between the chair and the keyboard.

(BTW, if the firefox binary in in /usr/lib, then there is probably a bug in the package). ]]> Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:17:33 +0000 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:20:06 +0000
And why shouldn't users know the filesystem. What a lame argument. Force every user who wants to know to pick up a manual? If you want to attract developers, make the base intuitive.

And its your kind that has already lost my interest in programming for linux anymore. Because perl scripts for instance aren't associated with .pl, and they wont work with a +x if they were coded on another platform. In that case they need to understand the filesystem.


And honestly, with the current way, everything is hardcoded. Heres a plan. Why don't we just hardcode all directories for the rest of our lives? Thats great. F*** flexibility. Flexibility is evidence of bad programming.


Are you JOKING!!! Seriously. I cant believe you are actually arguing that people shouldn't understand everything they can about their computer. In that case, lets digitally sign everything, slap a palladium sticker on, and force every programmer to follow Ubuntu's demands.
]]> Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:43:20 +0000
If you want to complain about /usr/lib/firefox making no sense then you're actually complaining about Windows' filesystem making no sense.

The filesystems of Windows and OSX are designed to, as much as possible, isolate programs from one another. This is because their concept of software is of boxes bought in shops containing CDs of code which is actively trying to take over systems and cripple other programs which are seen as rivals.

The Linux filesystem is organised based on the idea that the more code that is shared between applications the better, and that only doing one thing yourself and relying on others to everything else is good. These other things can be relied upon to appear (since package management is done by something else) and things will just work.

I would replace Ubuntu without second thoughts if some update started creating paths like /usr/LookAtMyCompany/IAmACompany/REMEMBERMYNAMEANDBUYMYTHINGS/images, that's the reality of a Windows-like filesystem.]]> Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:52:03 +0000
I believe the only things holding this back are: 1) fear of change; 2) annoyance felt by the people who have learnt something esoteric and difficult only to have it replaced by something intuitive and usable; 3) not invented here syndrome. None of which are valid reasons for not implementing this spec.

Let's stop holding desktop Linux back.]]> Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:28 +0000
Either way, I'm not too concerned about this.

I'm mainly interested, in at least changing the names of the directories to be more friendly. ]]> Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:16:06 +0000
Users should not have to look around in the filesystem anyway. Why even thinking about breaking compability for this. It's STUPID. And the votes says the same as me ...]]> Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:18:30 +0000
zooounds, ask yourself, if I set up your network, and the server room was full of spaghetti cabling, is it a good thing? Clearly not. It makes it harder for others to take over, and newbies to learn.

Our filesystem was designed for dumb terminals. Let me be the first to call the people voting against this total morons. Its silly you guys want to hang onto a standard which was established back in the day when usability was not an issue (and it was perfectly acceptable for users to screw up their system).

The reason I have actually left using Ubuntu for vista, and many of my friends have left to OSX, is because we all believe that there are standards, and then there is stupidity. The last filesystem to use idiot file-system directories was Windows 3.1.

Let me make one thing clear, if you grow a filesystem on a base that isn't user-friendly, the rest of the system will grow that way. ]]> Sun, 17 Aug 2008 07:22:10 +0000
I've never used a Mac, so I can't comment on its filesystem, but I would say that both the UNIX filesystem and the AmigaOS filesystem are both more logical than the Windows/GoboLinux filesystem.]]> Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:19:30 +0000
I think at the very least, userspace applications such as gimp, openoffice.org, etc should live in their own separate folder. At the moment, openoffice.org is found in a place I can't care to remember, but it's somewhere different to where gimp is stored, and then there's the insanity of Firefox (which is a native Linux application - it's platform-independent) being stored in /usr/lib. Additionally, when users want their applications, the most likely candidate for them to be in would be /bin or /sbin - not /usr/share (or /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/lib, or whatever).

I voted this idea up, because FHS is esoteric and confusing to new users and is also a headache for experienced users (if I received a penny every time I had to use find, or, god forbid, grep, to find that new application I installed using apt...)]]> Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:10:41 +0000
Why don't they want that other people - so called "newbies" - can easily comprehend the new (in terms of "not Windows") filesystem? Why aren't they (the newbies) free to explore it, why should they stay locked in their home folder?

Do these superior users want mindless drones? Why are newbies not allowed to easier ascend from user to developer? Why do they have to clear this hurdle?

Things could be much more simple. Simpler means less cognitive effort. Less cognitive effort means more productivity. Machines and programs were not invented so humans can be lazy they were invented to ease their lifes and give them more time and energy for the things they find more important in their.

This filesystem is just a regular evolution like anything else. I know that people are afraid of change (I am too) but change is inevitable. The longer you hold on to things the more it hurts, because you can't stop them from changing.

Why do we use a mouse? Where are the needle printers? Why are we using a telephone, wasn't the telegraph good enough? Who will ever need harddisks bigger than 500 MB?

... I had to get this out. It stressed me all day. Thank you for reading this.]]> Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:26:16 +0000 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:35:39 +0000
Anyway, the users can explore their system and search at internet what is the use of every directory, it's not hard and must not be a problem.
This is for explore, for use the system you just need home (in a diferent partition of course)]]> Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:11:49 +0000
People shouldn't need to modify bits of text to do their work, and they who want to do very technical stuff won't be bothered with a somewhat "cryptic" file hierarchy.

For people who don't understand what /home/username means we could easily hide that in the file-manager as something else (and show full name when clicking on the "addressbar")

-1]]> Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:11:47 +0000
Its like a chef only observing rules of hygiene for new customers, on the basis that the regulars know how to deal with food poisoning.

The idea of ubuntu generally is to make an OS for everyone, not just some initated linux gurus.

]]> Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:25:52 +0000
Those who've been using it for a while can probably install packages, or even other operating systems, thus Ubuntu should focus on new users only and everyone else be damned (since they can install something else if they don't like it, whilst new users can't)]]> Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:28:04 +0000 "All this stuff is the package manager business, not yours. If you want to install Firefox and OpenOffice in different directories on your desktop computer, then it is simply that the bug is between the chair and the keyboard."

And if I created a new software called "firefox", where should I install them? What if I want to maintain two different versions of the same software? You want them to be mixed together?

"Come on, should we make our file system completely stupid because of newbies?"

You know what, you really sound hostile to newbies. It's fine as long as you don't spread linux and say windows sucks linux rocks.

You know the story of RD RAM? It's a good memory module. Research what happened to it. Linux (except Gobo) is just being the same thing, they are self-centered.

I'm glad there's something like Gobo linux. At least.]]> Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:19:11 +0000
/
/bin
/boot
/cdrom>
/dev
/etc
/home
/initrd
/lib
/lost+found
/media
/mnt
/opt
/proc
/root
/sbin
/srv
/sys
/tmp
/usr
/var

Or this:

/applications
/depot
/home
/library
/system

Remember we need to focus on the user, not on esoteric traditions.
/System]]> Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:59:03 +0000
The idea that people should need to mess around in system folders is so last century.]]> Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:13:52 +0000 Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:16:08 +0000
I vote for my freedom to install multiple version of the same software!

I vote for my freedom to mess with the filesystem whenever I feel so, or whenever I feel i'm better than the synaptic manager!

I vote for my freedom to manage my applications without learning something complex structure!

I vote for the independence of my apps from the stupid FHS.

I vote for the users!]]> Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:54:14 +0000 Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:39:07 +0000 I would say that Firefox is in /usr/lib because Firefox is not a Linux application.

But it is still an application, not a library, despite what OS it may have originally been written for. So it should live in one of the bin directories, NOT in /usr/lib.]]> Sat, 27 Sep 2008 23:30:16 +0000 Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:07:19 +0000
I ask you, why should that standard dictate where should the application go? Why that freedom to choose should be taken away from us? That's just so Microsoft, worse than Microsoft, at least Microsoft gives us a little more freedom than most linux distro.]]> Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:04:11 +0000
By default it should be in /usr/bin. NOT in /usr/lib. It is an application, not a library, and if you want it in somewhere non-standard like /usr/lib, the user should make that choice. NOT the distributor. It's this messy implementation that adds to my belief that FHS is unnecessarily archaic.]]> Sun, 05 Oct 2008 08:09:11 +0000 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:00:03 +0000
That argument is flawed, because there's no such thing as perfect. Changing would mean going from the current system, which is broken in several ways, to a different system which is broken in several different ways. To me, it doesn't seem worth it.]]> Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:44:55 +0000
And AGAIN gobolinux system DOES NOT remove the current one, you just get two layers.]]> Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:59:02 +0000
Try compiling a kernel manually instead of using GCC. It's hard. That's a problem. What's the solution? GCC.

Manually messing around with the thousands of files in the filesystem is hard. That's a problem. What's the solution? Package management.

There is NO need to "manually" mess with the filesystem outside Home.

If a config file needs editing by hand then file a bug that a new config GUI needs to be written.

If a proprietary company does not provide a package then ask them why not, and tell them to file bugs against the package manager which implement what they need (eg. cross-distro).

If the package manager can't do something like install multiple versions of something then file a bug against the package manager (for example, Conary allows multiple versions to be installed at once).

Changing the filesystem hierarchy, or adding a new one on top, is a hack. It is attempting to use a bit of duct-tape to fix some things temporarily, when actually those real issues should be addressed so the duct-tape is not needed.

In an ideal world the filesystem DOES NOT MATTER, FHS/GoboLinux/whatever. It is more productive to strive towards this ideal in this case rather than divert a LOT of effort to go down a path which is ultimately a dead-end (when the ideal is achieved).]]> Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:52:14 +0000 Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:41:51 +0000 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:40:31 +0000 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:48:53 +0000
If you argue to hide files/folders then a "smart linux god" will tell you that eventually you have to go into all the folders (ie - you shouldn't hide it)

If you argue to clean up the folders to something more learnable/understandable the "smart linux god" tells you that if you search the web, you might stumble upon some documentation to help you learn the "best file structure in the world" (ie - you have to earn your right to use the system the hard way)

Some talk about "administering servers / mounting different locations"... but Ubuntu is for end users and likely single machines. (the distribution has been taken over by those it wasn't targeted at in the first place)

Some "smart linux gods" assume that technical users want to waste time learning a structure that with a few compromises could meet needs of the perfect setup and still be clearer.

Perhaps Gobo doesn't have it right - but they certainly have the right idea!]]> Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:05:56 +0000
In such a situation, changing the filesystem hierarchy is bad because it will not give any advantages (since if it is done then the user shouldn't know or care that anything's even been changed), but it will give big disadvantages in that many guides, tutorials, manuals, books, programs, etc. will be wrong, many people are familiar with the current filesystem design but not the Gobo-style one (whilst exactly nobody is familiar with the Gobo one but not the current standard), so essentially changing things would make power users' lives more difficult, the lives of anyone Googling for tutorials and guides more difficult, whilst having precisely no change on the lives of those who this idea is supposed to help.

Switch to Gobolinux if you really want to, but from this idea's score it is quite clear that this is not going to happen in Ubuntu.]]> Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:47:36 +0000 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:32:52 +0000 Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:07:02 +0000 Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:05:21 +0000 Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:01:46 +0000 Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:06:32 +0000
@borsook... I was under the impression the Linux Standards bodies were not just promoting a hierarchy but also a set of variables so when a distribution installs a package, the software installs into the folders that that distribution is using for software. We should be able to change the hierarchy and not break compliant software.

@ALL - I wish people would quit talking of Newbies and Power Users. While there are different requirements for each... a lot of discussions such as improving the file system layout to be more understandable/learnable would benefit both (IMHO).

I know many systems administrators, programmers, graphic designers, etc. (smart competent people) who couldn't be bothered to give Linux an opportunity because it represents quite a learning curve... people don't have a lot of time in their jobs to screw around so things that can be made easier should be made easier. Then more mental energy can be put into the real problems.

Ironically - people never talk about the ugly unix-ish drive references in Windows... because they are very very much hidden (are they even visible above the Kernel?)]]> Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:47:03 +0000 Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:43:51 +0000
I don't know all the issues and requirements out there for a hierachy, I just know it can be easier for all. (although like packaging, there is much that perhaps needs re-evaluation from a fresh perspective, history is killing us here)
]]> Mon, 22 Dec 2008 04:06:51 +0000 +1]]> Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:25:14 +0000
Since Gobo-linux use pointers and still have the real linux hierarchy inside of it, someone could make a hack so that there is an option in nautilus to change it to Gobo-mode vice versa. This also means that it doesn't take that much hard-drive space because it only uses pointers!

I think it's sad that so many people here voted down without knowing what gobo-linux is. I'm voting +1 for making an option in nautilus.]]> Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:39:06 +0000
People need to run multiple versions of the same applications and/or libraries at the same time. This is the only structure that allows this to happen in a simple way.

It's ridiculous to stick with the archaic legacy file structure of present Unix-like systems. If you don't innovate on this, it's just a matter of time before the whole thing dies because someone else did.

It's just a shame that the Gogolinux team doesn't have the resources that the Ubuntu team does in order to make this happen on a large scale distro. ]]> Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:11:12 +0000 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:03:09 +0000
Please don't tell me by the way that no one navigates the filesystem from terminals any more. I'm a programmer. I do about 50% of my computing from Emacs and a terminal.

While this thread certainly isn't about flaming other operating systems, it's about improving Ubuntu, I would like to point out the windows equivalent of /etc. It's the registry. I think linux wins there :)

I'd also like to dispell the myth that "things have to go in certain directories." Yes, there are *standard* directories where things are expected to be. One of the chief advantages of this is that they system knows where to find executable files. Lets say you have a program called foo. You want to run it in windows. If it didn't make a start menu entry, how are you going to do that? Chances are it didn't put itself somewhere in the %PATH. Sure it might be in C:\Program Files\FooIncorporated/FooProduct/foo.exe (what a ghastly thing to type), but you still have to go looking to see if it's there. Under linux you can just run 'foo' from a terminal or run dialog. This is *nice*. But if for some reason you don't like that behaviour, you can put your executables whereever you like. You can put your program in /bar/baz/blah/mumble/foo if you like. Unless you edit the $PATH the system won't find it, but you can certainly create the equivalent of a "start menu entry" to launch it, using the gnome or KDE's menus or their equivalents in other window managers. Oh, your package manager doesn't let you choose where to install things? I think that would then be a failure of the package manager, not the filesystem layout.

I'm certainly not going to say the linux filesystem is perfect. It's far from it. But we do need to consider the reason things are the way they are.

1. Pathnames should be short and descriptive (linux accomplishes one of these currently, the other falls by the wayside much of the time)
2. Executables should be easily found for quick launching and interoperability (one program launching another, piping its results to another, etc). Any system which does not preserve this is a *massive* step backwards.
3. Libraries should be stored in common locations so as to be accessible by all programs (many windows applications duplicate dlls, putting them in their own application directories, this is bad and bloated).]]> Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:29:09 +0000
What would the gains be? Power users wouldn't have to familiarize themselves with *nix filesystem structures. And... and that's about it. I can't think of anything else.

What would the effort be? Enormous. Repackaging of all .deb files, symlinking all over the place, confused and partially revised documentation (two ways of doing the same thing).

I think Mac OS X has shown quite well that keeping a Unix-like filesystem structure can be fine if you hide it. At any point in Finder you can go to Go and specify a path to /lib or /usr or /bin, but most Mac users never see anything outside of Programs or /Users/username. And that's not because of symlinking. That's just hiding what's underneath.

As long as Ubuntu users can use Add/Remove and GDebi, why are they digging around in system files anyway, unless they're power users?]]> Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:01:14 +0000 Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:28:04 +0000 Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:46:18 +0000 Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:06:24 +0000
Perhaps we don't need to change overnight - but we should be ensuring that everytime we build a package that it is built in a flexible manner such that future refinements to the hierarchy can occur.

In terms of benefits - there are real benefits in making all levels of the platform easier to adopt. If we hope to attract new developers, administrators, and power users (who will help promote, support, and advance this system for all and especially general users) then we have to make all levels of the system more accessible.]]> Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:45:43 +0000 Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:12:01 +0000
While an example that will get me flamed, notice that for the past number of releases, the Windows file system layout has undergone refinements. I know it was *ugly* to begin with so it more than needed, but the fact that they can and are willing to change it, unlike many on this side of the fence who are unwilling to considering it, it saddens me. I mean we are the "innovative" ones right (cough)

Let's open the door for improvement a crack...
]]> Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:50:18 +0000 Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:35:44 +0000