0
votes
|
|
39
0
39
|
|
|
|
|
Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Greyor
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 05:34
|
|
|
|
If you want something like that, use OS X or even GoboLinux as you recommended. I don't think we should overhaul the traditional structure. It's worked fine for decades and I think it should stay the same, especially for legacy apps. Not meaning to rain on your parade or anything.
|
|
peterjs
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 06:58
|
|
|
|
Yeah, there's a reason that Gobo Linux is a pariah. The current standard has worked for decades, it's a radical departure from the way windows does things, but it makes sense once you understand why it's done that way. A big part of it is the ability the entire /usr/ tree mounted as a remote file system, if you started moving things around that'd be much harder to do. A lot of things linux does aren't intuitive on a single user desktop, but you've got to remember that it's descended from multiuser servers, where this stuff is intuitive, and it forces good security practices in a single user environment.
|
|
wolfier
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 07:51
|
|
|
The Unix file structure is very intuitive. What's wrong?
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 12:48
|
|
|
Hahaha, intuitive. So intuitive that if you want to delete all files pertaining to a specific application you need to go directory to directory looking for them. Thats why OSX doesn't really need package management.
Linux is not unix. Just because it has worked this long, doesn't mean it is the best. You must admit it has never worked that well. Your average user doesn't see /bin and go "hmm, binaries", they see it and go "hmm, trash goes in there". People need to start facing reality and just start admitting, that the linux directory structure is only friendly to experienced users (it takes a while to understand it fully, and many experienced users I still doubt knows what opt is used for).
Maybe not the same structure as Gobo, but renaming things to /programs /config may be a start.
Voted up.
|
|
ben.wade
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 15:04
|
|
|
Yeah the unix structure has *worked* for decades, but so has my gasoline engine.
At least check out this article: http://gobolinux.org/index.php?page=doc/articles/clueless I disagree a little with some of the Gobo conventions. I think that the directories should have short lowercase names rather than long Capital names. I also thing the organization is a *little* off.
The structure is bloated and could use some reorganization. It doesn't reflect our approach to multi-user computing anymore.
|
|
Motaner
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 20:07
|
|
|
Agreed 100%.
Linux directory structure is very old and far from intuitive. Why use so many abbreviations like bin, dev, tmp instead of Binaries, Devices, Temporary.
Gobolinux, MacOS and Windows has a very intuitive directory structure which allows easy program installation and uninstallation.
|
|
|
@peterjs
The linked paper addresses your concern as well. He argues that with union mounts, that concern disappears.
|
|
|
|
If the directory structure is changed, so much application code will have to be rewritten. that could bankrupt a lot of small companies. There was a reason for the original structure, Someone might want to research it before indicting it. We and all our clients will be abandoning ubuntu if that does happen. I am becoming more and more dissatisfied with ubuntu. Most of it is because of little crap like this. People want to change things for the sake of change without realizing the ramifications.
|
|
mog
wrote on the 20 May 08 at 12:31
|
|
|
This would also make it really easy to set up AppArmor security profiles.
Although it's already fairly simple, it would really make sense for a HelloWorld app to only have read access to /System/Libraries and write/execute access to /Programs/HelloWorld.
Should make sandboxing more straightforward.
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 20 May 08 at 13:00
|
|
|
Wtf computoman... No offense, but I question your logic totally (namely because it makes no sense).
For starters, you should be using the base directory standard anyway for configuration. Even my application is, and I'm a "nobody" in the coding world, so if you guys have done that properly, it means that changing settings folders wouldn't be an issue for starters.
Secondly, if your code is using that many hard coded locations everywhere, then your company should die, and I hope it goes bankrupt, because it means that there are already distro's it wont be compatible with, and you are screwing around customers with crappy hard-coded cut&paste code, which is pathetic.
Straight out, don't be a f**king jackass. Microsoft changed their structure with Vista, and there weren't any problems. And it didn't bankrupt anything. And this wont bankrupt anyone.
In fact computoman, if you feel that strongly about it, email this idea to your clients, and get them to vote against it. But don't be surprise if every client starts questioning your business practices.
And yes, everyone call me a troll, but ffs, you are actually trying to win an argument with total lies. Bankrupsy? Only if your company is a bunch of terrible developers. You say it needs research, wheres yours? Because last I checked, its not costing gobolinux billions with their new layout. If your statement was true, Gobolinux would not have been possible.
People like you computoman give Linux a bad name, spreading deception/lies to make a point (doing so causes people to lose respect for linux). Maybe try giving a VALID argument.
And just because something has been a standard for a while, does not mean it works well.. The current layout is counter intuitive and was a good choice 20 years ago when linux was meant to be hardcore, but these days, we should be aiming to make everything obvious, and user friendly. Why should we continue to be difficult to use, when 1 change (which can safely have a transition period anyway), makes a big difference in understandability.
ie. instead of bin, have programs (bin sounds like trash), instead of etc, have Settings (etc sounds like misc files).
And as of yet, we don't have a standard for easily removing a specific program (whilst in OSX, you simply drag it to the bin). This is mainly because our layout makes it difficult.
We should at least investigate this.
|
|
kraftman
wrote on the 13 Jun 08 at 15:49
|
|
|
> Hahaha, intuitive. So intuitive that if you want to delete > all files pertaining to a specific application you need to > go directory to directory looking for them. Thats why OSX >doesn't really need package management.
Just get the hell out of here with this crap! macos file system suck a lot and apples whole system which it's just a parody of unix.
|
|
|
This new implementation is must...it has to be there..
The most needed change in linux
|
|
iyank4
wrote on the 12 Aug 08 at 04:31
|
|
|
Nice to have a traditional directory structure.
As people now get more than one pc/laptop for him/her self, it will be easier if user can install application as-easy-as copy one folder from the source computer to another.
You can backup not only your data, but the whole apps. and restore it as easy as paste it to /blablabla directory
^_^
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 12 Aug 08 at 07:47
|
|
|
@kraftman. No, I wont leave, and I'm sick of arguing with dumbarses like you. I'll leave when I'm banned I have decided!
I've explained over and over again why the layout sucks, and the fact I keep on having to tell noobs time and time again how it works, proves it sucks. I worked at an Applecentre for 3 years, and NOBODY needed education!
1. /bin/etc/lib/usr/local/opt no directories make immediate sense to end users. Compared with: /Programs/Settings/Modules/GUI (the closest I could think of)/Proprietary
They make immediate sense. What part of /usr/local/bin do you immediately understand without a manual?
2. Applications such as Firefox dump all of their files in /usr/lib/Firefox now, because they want all the files together, instead of mushed together with other directories. If the filesystem was so great, why aren't Mozilla following the standards? OH. BECAUSE THE STANDARDS SUCK!!!
3. On OSX, no package management needed. I can pick up a .app bundle, drag it onto usb key, drop it on another computer. No .deb needed. And to remove, just throw it in the trash. Users have no problem with this. If we followed this, we could even call an uninstall script automatically when its dragged to the trash.
4. Linux is the only "user friendly (tryhard)" OS with an non-intuitive filesystem now.
5. There are ways of changing the layout (like with Gobohide), without users knowing that /Applications/Console is actually pointing to /bin
So how about YOU come back when you actually think about your argument. Because I guarentee, I do!
In fact, unfortunately for you, I will finish my current studies (in 2-4 weeks), so that may even give me the opportunity to create another buntu subdistro that fixes stuff like this! Because seriously, judging by the way some ideas are being voted here, I think a lot of these ideas which aren't given credit for (such as elf-icon), need to be implemented for people to see the benefits.
|
|
|
+ millions to auzy!
I agree!
I wonder why there's more than negative votes than the argument they have. They've got nothing to beat the argument of why FHS sucks.
They simply don't accept it.
They are afraid of the better change.
Stubborn oldies.
My advice is to suck on your pride and concentrate on what you believe in this ubuntu distro, "Humanity to others".
I guess they're hypocrites. That's it. Humanity-to-others your sorry ass.
|
|
|
+infinite
I vote for my freedom to choose whichever directory I wanna install my app!
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!
|
|
|
This needs to happen. It would be a huge step for Linux. Actually, I don't even care about Linux or being compatible with Linux. I just want an OS that manages applications in a way that actually makes sense. This would be a huge step for any OS.
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.
|
|
|
Mr Shuttleworth wants to make Ubuntu better than MAC and so do I.
This is going to be one of the most important steps towards a MAChish OS.
I understand the strong points of our current filesystem and I'm comfortable with it but only after reading ubuntuforums for almost 2 years.
I have two points here
1: Don't implement a new filesystem, just hide ugly folders and create symlinks to them as new ones or something similar. Just think.
2: Convince Linux Foundation about it. Ubuntu is Linux, Linux is not Ubuntu. This implemented on all Distros would mean the best change in Linux so far.
Just think about it. PackageKit is making such a wave for it's simplistic package management. Imagine if you don't even need that. Just dragging apps to trash would uninstall them. It can't get cooler than that. Think about it Devs.
|
Post your comment
|
