The Ubuntu community has contributed 10286 ideas, 46172 comments, 1012990 votes
Idea
#2651: Put application settings, other system files into the same folder under home
|
| |
-1
|
|
|
Written by mp3phish the 3 Mar 08 at 04:46.
Category: Look and Feel.
Related to:
Nothing/Others.
Status: New
|
|
|
Description
It is really annoying that applications that create hidden config files create them in the root of your home directory. It is a ton of clutter. hidden files are not another use for a directory split.
I propose to move all hidden files created by applications into /home/user/.etc or /home/user/.settings or similar. That way the user doesn't have to worry about all the junk making noise in their home directory and all the system generated stuff will be in one place.
I also think it would be a good idea that there be a tmp folder inside there somewhere where all applications store things like cache, cookies, and other junk. This way when your making backups, it is easy to ignore the folder, rather than having to select hundreds of differently located temp directories laying about the home directory.
This would go a LONG way to get rid of newbie confusion.
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
mp3phish wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 05:08
|
Thanks Auzy, but it looks like the old command line zealots are voting down my idea.
Listen all you people, if you think it would hurt Ubuntu or the way Linux manages the system directories, you need to post why you think this is. You are using Ubuntu for crying out loud, software for human beings. There is no reason that we need to have the home directory cluttered to un-usability _by default_
You don't have your desktop cluttered up by default do you? So why would you expect any different from your home directory?
|
|
aysiu wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 05:09
| |
I don't see how this is confusing. If I don't want to see the settings folders, I don't see them. If I do want to see the settings folders, I press Control-H.
|
|
aysiu wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 05:09
| |
This has nothing to do with the command-line.
|
|
mp3phish wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 05:25
|
aysiu:
First of all, the period isn't a directory, its a file attribute which hides it. If you are going to argue that they aren't using the . in lieu of a hidden directory, I'd like to hear the argument because maybe there is a reason I don't know about.
But in reality, if you want to use the . as a directory, then make it a directory, not a hidden file!
A hidden file does not a directory make.
How else can I say it?
It's even in the standard for crying out loud.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 05:41
|
aysiu I dont think you get it, OSX does this because it means all your settings and stuff are isolated in one location. Linux on the otherhand scatters it everywhere in the user directory.
If you want to delete all your settings in OSX you just wipe ~/Library/prefs for instance, or if you want to wipe your caches ~/Library/caches.
In Linux, if you wanna delete your preferences, you find every .directory and wipe them. But you wanna wipe just the caches? Good luck searching.
All the fonts and all that are also kept in clean directories.
Anything not media is stored in /Library. Thats really what should be done here
|
|
AndrewC wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 05:44
| |
There is already an in-progress freedesktop.org spec which tells applications to store user data and config in two hidden directories instead of littering the home folder with new hidden directories. Hopefully applications will begin to follow it.
|
|
AndrewC wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 05:45
| |
Also, Auzy, I should clarify that "Linux" doesn't put things anywhere; it is the applications which choose to make a mess of your home directory.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 06:01
|
Thats true AndrewC, but it depends on the argument.
The moment you start an argument about renaming /bin and /etc to user friendly names (which I think should be done), hardcore bash users will use the "But linux has been doing it this way since the beginning" argument. So you are right..
Good to hear there is a freedesktop.org spec already. It seems that if freedesktop wasn't around, we would still be all running xfree86.
|
Post your comment
|
|
