One thing I like it with the current way is that all config files the user need to edit are collected under /etc. Of course, if the symlinks works correctly, they would still be with GLFH, but it would probably be quite a mess to support this properly, and ensure that every config file actually gets linked in the right place. And I'm not looking forward to have to check both /etc, and having to sometimes search thtough the /Programs dir for the right progam. right version, and then find the config file there. I haven't used GoboLinux for myself, but I have a hard time to see exactly how this would make things easier for users and admins. If a user wants to install a custom version of a program, he can easily do that in his home-directory, or if he has sufficient privileges, under /usr/local. I know that /etc , /usr and so on are not very intuitive names, but I don't see that as a drawback major to warrant this change. Or maybe that this is the wrong solution to that problem. Just my two cents. Cheers Pär <div>2008/1/9, Stephan Hermann <<a href="mailto:sh@sourcecode.de">sh@sourcecode.de</a>>:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi, Am Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:42:43 -0600 schrieb "Conrad Knauer" <<a href="mailto:atheoi@gmail.com">atheoi@gmail.com</a>>: > On Jan 9, 2008 5:15 AM, Guilherme Augusto > <<a href="mailto:guilherme.augustus@gmail.com"> guilherme.augustus@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > > >> <a href="http://www.gobolinux.org/?page=at_a_glance">http://www.gobolinux.org/?page=at_a_glance</a> > > > > What would improve by using Gobolinux filesystem hierarchy? > > A little over a year ago SABDFL blogged on > <a href="http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/66">http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/66</a> > > --- > 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... Well, I don't like to interfere here with Mark, but packaging has absolutely nothing to do with a filesystem standard. Mark blogged this stuff not because we are in need of a new Filesystem Standard, but because we invent many different packaging methods for the same stuff. RPM, DEB Packages, SlackWare, this new python based packaging systen, solaris pkg, etc. A Filesystem Standard should always be applied on all unix alike and old unix operating systems. I wonder if you can apply GoboFHS to an old fart AIX unix or onto an tru64? (well, tru64 + solaris are the only real unixes on the market which a unix admin needs to work with...linux is a unix alike system and most of the admins are working on linux). Therefore introducing a complete new FSS doesn't bring any good to the world...and right now, we are not talking about the desktop here, just because until today there is not a real revenue stream to see from linux for desktop (hopefully this will change). Reading the docs of the GoboFHS this is just an add on to the normal base file system structure, therefore I think when we use our braincells in a good way, we find a better way, then symlinking stuff. A sysadmin has more clue about the system then the normal user has, which is good, so the sysadmin needs to take care about the user needs. A user just wants to save a file in a special location, let's say: My Files/Pr0n/Hot/Stuff/ This is already being the reality...so for what we need a change in /var/www/mywebsite/htdocs/foo...where user bla can't save anyways? > > 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. Yes, but we introduce new bugs when we use a kernel extension for this. How long will GoBo support the stuff? > Also, just as an aside, I find that if I need Ubuntu help, searching > for '[my problem] Linux' isn't nearly as helpful as '[my problem] > Ubuntu'. People will adapt, just as someone moving from KDE to Gnome > will adapt to the different apps and controls. Well that's one of the problems we have right now. Many people think: linux == ubuntu and Ubuntu == linux...which is totally nonsense. When I have a problem using my Ubuntu, hopefully the same problem will occure on any other distro as well. So linux as searchterm would be the right thing to do. > I don't think the GLFH should be rejected (just) because its > different; there would never be any progress if we do that ;) The problem is not the idea, the problem is the implementation. as always. The computer was a good idea, but the implementation was a real bug ,-) (Happy Birthday Mr. Weizenbaum, Greetings to Berlin) Regards, \sh -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list <a href="mailto:Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com">Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com</a> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss"> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss</a> </blockquote></div>