Ubuntu developers: Why is the specification mentioned in [ <a href="https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/system-directory-approach">https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/system-directory-approach</a> ] and [ <a href="https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/userfriendly-filesystem-structure">https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/userfriendly-filesystem-structure</a> ] "oft-rejected"? Granted, these proposals are not very thought-out or defined, but it seems like the kind of user-centric design decision that is Ubuntu's foundation. I understand the benefits of the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (such as minimal-mount booting and interoperability through standards-compliance) but these seem more like barriers-to-entry for an otherwise ideal system: problems to be solved, not reasons to stay entrenched. I think back to my gradual acceptance of OS-X. A staunch Windows user, I was completely taken aback by the lack of "Add/Remove Programs," let alone "C:\". As I became more familiar with Linux, I began asking myself "what is '/etc'?" or "if I make a webpage, where do I put the .html files?" or "what is the difference between '/bin', '/usr/bin', and 'usr/local/bin'?" (It took me days to figure out what "usr" even meant!) I looked up the FHS on Wikipedia (and the subsequent links) and finally understood the point of it all. Still, when I later used a Mac (as I sporadically do) I realized that there was something more: "/Applications" (et. all.) There's another side to this issue: atomic packages. I think back to my Windows days: dll hell... untraceable files installed everywhere... the registry... an unmanageable melting pot of binaries that could only be cleaned out by periodically re-installing the operating system from scratch. I don't have this same problem on Ubuntu, but it's not because the problem doesn't exist. In fact, I think the fileystem hierarchy in Ubuntu is way worse from this angle. A program gets installed in /usr/bin, /usr/lib, /etc, and who knows where else. It's manageable because there is a system (apt) that keeps track of it all for you, but that makes package-management a monolithic, cathedral task that is very isv-unfriendly. I believe that the adoption of the ideals presented by "GoboLinux" [ <a href="http://www.gobolinux.org/">http://www.gobolinux.org/</a> ] are a necessary component of the evolution of a consumer-level desktop os (as opposed to an enterprise-level server os). Granted, this seems to be a consistently-rejected idea, and there must be a reason for it. Still, in my reading, I have found no document explaining, from the Ubuntu perspective, why this "oft-rejected specification" is, in fact, oft-rejected. Comments are greatly appreciated. ~jonathon