Hardy+1 Idea: GoboLinux Filesystem Hierarchy?

[Joel Bryan Juliano]

On Jan 10, 2008 3:42 AM, Conrad Knauer <atheoi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2008 5:15 AM, Guilherme Augusto <guilherme.augustus at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> http://www.gobolinux.org/?page=at_a_glance
> >
> > What would improve by using Gobolinux filesystem hierarchy?
>
> A little over a year ago SABDFL blogged on
> http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/66
>
> ---
> A long, long time ago, packaging was an exciting idea. [...] Today,
> these differences are just a hindrance. The fact that there are so
> many divergent packaging systems in the free software world (and I
> include the various *bsd's) is a waste of time and energy. [...] I'd
> like to see us define distribution-neutral packaging that suits both
> the source-heads and the distro-heads.
> ---
>
> The GLFH sounds like a good way to create a standard package format
> that can be easily layered over any *nix OS...
>
> > On the other hand, if someone already uses Linux, he probably got used
> > with the "normal" filesystem hierarchy. If it is someone's first time,
> > wouldn't it be confused to have a filesystem in a way and every Forum, HOWTO
> > and other help docs over the net telling how to do things with another
> > filesystem hierarchy?
>
> "the Unix paths [...] are actually there, but they are concealed from
> view using the GoboHide kernel extension. This is for aesthetic
> purposes only and purely optional"  IOW, the old way of doing things
> should still work.
>

If you look at the Mac filesystem, you'll see some of the familiar
*unix* paths, but
you won't see them in Finder. While GoboHide provides a hidden
filesystem on both
file managers and shells, it's not practical to impliment than just
using .hidden files
for Nautilus. The same effect can be attainable, without loading any
kernel extensions.

I think whoever needs a hidden filesystems are the Nautilus, Dolphin,
etc. users.

[see http://joelbryanonsoftware.blogspot.com/2007/03/file-system-preferences.html]