Slashdot Mirror

With only hobbyist Linux distros now not forcing systemd on me, I've been forced to move to FreeBSD. It wasn't Microsoft that made me ditch Linux; it was the Linux community itself that did that.

Red Hat was patient zero, and infected both Arch and Debian.
Ubuntu contracted it from Debian.
Mint contracted it from Ubuntu.

There are quarantine zones where systemd dare not tread, and the number of survivors who reach them grows daily.

There are several great Linux distros without systemd:
Devuan (a fork; Debian without systemd)
Gobolinux
Void Linux

And of course the old guard distros that had natural immunity to systemd:
Gentoo
Slackware

Don't give up on Linux. It is more crucial than ever to group with other systemd survivors and lend support to those who still need to be evacuated from the contaminated distros.

This link is a bit outdated (for instance, we don't tweak the root user for years now), but I've already responded to some criticism of this kind back in 2004: http://gobolinux.org/doc/artic...

especially this: Rootless GoboLinux

http://www.gobolinux.org/

I'm more worried about the loss of sbin (and /usr/sbin) where, although its purpose has morphed over time, it's a great place to put exes that you're NOT supposed to type on the commandline. Like cronjobs, scripts that are called by other scripts, or simply stuff that users shouldn't use or want cluttering their path.

Incidentally, these guys have taken it WAY further:

http://www.gobolinux.org/

http://www.gobolinux.org/ Combines executables and necessary libraries each in their own directory under '/programs' Uses links to show files in traditional places.

Gobo rootless might be of interest?

http://www.gobolinux.org/?page=rootless

/usr/local/* is for you stuff you've installed manually. /usr/bin is a perfectly sensible place for a package manager to put executables it installs. The package manager shouldn't fuck with anything in /usr/local.

I still think GoboLinux is on the right track.

Here is my experience with brand new wacom tablet devices: I just plugged it in and it immediately worked under Linux.

I wasn't talking about Wacom in particular, I was using them as an example of a piece of hardware that is likely to require drivers and/or software that isn't already bundled with Linux.

And I'm not even talking about "proprietary drivers". If the hardware is new, it doesn't matter if the manufacturer has released the driver source or not if your Linux version doesn't include them. You still have to be able to install them.

And dkms doesn't deal with the fact that the Linux kernel APIs (let alone the ABIs) are deliberately not kept stable, so any driver has a restricted window in which it will work. OS X had that problem up through Jaguar, and the stable APIs in Jaguar were a huge relief. THe intel transition produced another little storm of broken drivers, and hardware turned into deadware, and that caused quite a bit of unhappiness. Manu of the user-visible problems in Vista were due to Microsoft changing the driver API for the first time since Windows 2000, and that's been one of the things that's sold people on risking the switch to Linux or OS X.

I'm running Windows 2000 on my Wintendo. That was released in 1999, and hasn't been supported in years, but apart from Bluetooth devices pretty much every third party driver has Just Worked. Mac OS doesn't have that big a window of support, but I have plugged in drivers from this year in my Mac running Panther (released in 2003, over 5 years ago) and they worked.

Would a 5 year old Linux system work with a driver released in 2008? What would you need to do to make it work?

Currently, the last remaining one that uses packaging similar (although not as movable like on OS X), http://www.gobolinux.org/

Looking at GoboLinux, it doesn't look even vaguely similar to the NeXTstep style bundles in OS X. It's a linkfarm model, which is also a useful approach, but it's not what I'm talking about.

OK, let's say Wacom comes out with a new tablet and wants to include Linux support, here's how the user experience is going to be:

Windows: insert the CD (doubleclick on autorun.exe if you have autorun turned off), click "OK" on the license, plug in your tablet.

Mac: insert the CD and doubleclick on the driver .pkg file, slick "OK" on the license, plug in your tablet.

Linux: If you're using the latest version of Ubuntu, su to root then run "setup.sh" in a terminal. If that fails, follow the Debian instructions below.

If you have a Red Hat or SUSE System, open up a terminal and type "rpm -gibberish", unless it's RHEL X.Y or later, in which case you run "yum -gibberish". If you have a kernel older than 2.Y, you need to upgrade to 2.Z, then run "yum -gibberish". If you're using Fedora, you need to use this other gibberish.

If you're using a Debian system, run "dpkg -gibberish", unless it's Ubuntu later than A.B or "Freaky Comet", then you don't need to install the drivers, except for E, F, and G... you need to run THIS install script and

Here is my experience with brand new wacom tablet devices: I just plugged it in and it immediately worked under Linux.

Additionally, proprietary driver installation is handled by 'restricted-drivers', a tray application that will popup offering to install the drivers for you to get it working, all you have to do is check a checkbox. in the Ubuntu series of Linuxes. Mandriva has something very similar, but I forgot the name of the application (not that it's important to know, since it pops up automatically).

These have nothing to do with package management.

If you're using an EeePC, rotsa ruck.

I use Kubuntu intrepid on my EeePC 701 (was easier than installing Windows on it).

And that's assuming Wacom's willing to include 14 different sets of RPMs and DEBs for the most recent release of a half dozen of the most popular Linux distros.

So, why couldn't wacom use dkms again if they released a proprietary driver that distributions didn't have? It would work with all major desktop distributions just fine.

I've been looking for one like that. Haven't found one yet. URL?

Currently, the last remaining one that uses packaging similar (although not as movable like on OS X), http://www.gobolinux.org/ (the others which were closer to it, simply died from lack of interest - their websites are even gone).

This is largely the idea behind GoboLinux I think.

Well, it is not.
GP is talking about moving a file around and having the system keep track of it none the less.
Gobolinux redefines the standard file system hierarchy and moves away from traditionnal packaging system by allowing you to use multiple versions of a same package/program and using the filesystem as a database.

This is largely the idea behind GoboLinux I think. As a matter of fact, a lot of what's going to be said here has probably already been said here.

Ah now we have some discussion. Good points. I haven't used SymphonyOS in a couple of years and they do appear to be going in a different direction now, but it looks like all the core features I named are actually there, just spread out in a very non-Windows way. Gnome and Xfce do tend to split off into multiple panels with the taskbar on its own, but again all the elements are there and it's very easy to configure both of them to be very Windows like, and in fact many distributions do that (compare the default Gnome desktop layout of Ubuntu to the default Gnome install on openSuse, for example). To add to the "other linux desktop environment" category, even IceWM and Fluxbox have the same elements and in many cases are distributed with a similar layout.

You are correct that many of the Linux DE's intentionally copy the Windows feel to help Windows users feel at home, especially KDE, but I don't think this would be the case if it weren't a good model to begin with.

There are advantages and disadvantages to the way programs are installed / managed / launched on all OS's, and a balance here is a hard thing to strike. I've had lengthy conversations with some co-workers about it; interesting stuff but too much to get into here. Check out GoboLinux for another interesting model in the Linux world. The start menu shortcuts themselves don't bother me too much in Windows, moreso the registry. I can deal with shortcuts, but having program settings reside in three or four places is a pain (Documents & Settings\username\Application data, Documents & Settings\username\local settings, Program Files\program name, Registry, and sometimes under My Documents) - there doesn't seem to be any consistency. I like how programs are distributed and installed on Mac OS (or not installed, as it were), but I don't know how their shortcuts work or where settings and metadata is stored.

I agree that I have no problem with using somebody else's good ideas, everybody benefits. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with anybody here and I certainly don't like to give Microsoft props for anything, but I really think Windows '95 had a significant impact on our desktop environments moreso than any other OS since then.

Actually, there is already a distribution which reorganizes the filesystem in such a way. It is called GoboLinux, and is available here:
http://www.gobolinux.org/index.php

you might be interested in this:
  * http://www.gobolinux.org/

Its an interesting project, its not for the mass market yet but if they got some time and money they might be able to make it ready for the mass market.

You might want to check out GoboLinux. They're actually trying to do some of the things you mentioned.

This might help...
http://www.gobolinux.org/
at least with your first issue.

...and I told them to adopt the standard linux filesystem, you know, the one implemented by GoboLinux.

I look forward to seeing the results.

isn't there a distro that does something like this already?

The filesystem of course is one thing that instantly sets the two apart, /usr, /tmp, /etc, - these mean absolutely nothing to the guy that's been looking at c:\windows, c:\program files, c:\documents and settings, since school.

There is a Linux distro which takes that on. http://www.gobolinux.org/index.php is an alternative that makes the Linux system look a little more "familiar" to a Windows user. On another front, I'm a bit disappointed that no one seems to be touting Linspire/Freespire as a distribution. It's one of the few that's really been targeting the consumer market.

Which is why I also think you have a point about the ideological baggage. A lot of initiatives (like the Linux Standard Base project) get bogged down or caught in the crossfire of the various faction wars. Ideological purity isn't going to move people over to Linux, it's going to be whether they can set it up with a minimum of fuss and have it work, and have the applications they want available for it. We can whine all we want about Microsoft's desktop dominance and how they strong-arm OEM's into installing it. Yes, that's true. It also means that if we want the average user to switch, we have to make it easy for them to install Linux on their own, and have it "just work." Otherwise, they're not going to bother.

Well,

The problem is that MacOSX has this "Application Folder" concept, so you can just browse to /Apps in your filesystem and find all of your applications by their name and icon... try doing the same with any Linux distro /usr/bin.

To be able to provide the same simplicity we must change the current layout of the Linux filesystem, I know at least one Linux distro that have done this: GOBO Linux.

Gobo use a rather radical approach to the problem, where every application goes under the /Apps folder. MacOSX for instance only keeps the "userland" applications there.

From what I understand, that's how Mac OSX does it (just drop the software image on your computer and launch it). I haven't used OSX much, though, so I'm not totally positive. Gobo Linux also kinda tries to do this with Linux.

It's about fucking time. Everyone can see that this will improve adoption. There comes a time when you have to stop experimenting for a little while, tone it down a bit, just long enough to produce something which combines the best of all the experiments.

Trust me, I know this because I'm also guilty of overthinking and not doing, for far too long.

I'd also like to see appfolders as that is another thing that's obviously right in my eyes.

Look at this directory structure for just a minute, it's interesting:
GoboLinux' directory tree

Other people have had the same problem. This distribution:
http://gobolinux.org/index.php?page=faq
Is an attempt to address your concerns, although it is not particularly newbie friendly. I haven't tried it in a few years, so I can't give a review. But it may be the answer you want.

We already have it. Check out GoboLinux.

If you're running "rogue applications", you've got bigger problems.

But you shouldn't, which is exactly the GP's point. There's no reason the OS shouldn't solve those problems for you. Proper software management should not depend on all programs being well-behaved, nor should it depend on every program being in your package manager.

Of course, rather than arguing about whether centralized locations (/bin,/lib,/etc) are better or worse than segregated programs (/Programs/Xorg/6.8.2/), maybe we could just use an automated system of symlinks to get the benefits of both. Heck, while we're at it we could break the dependence on a centralized package manager too, by letting people install from source (or even third-party binary) while maintaining the same restrictions on the program tree. Oh wait, already been done. :) (Sorry, couldn't resist the plug for my current choice of desktop OS. It seemed pretty relevant to this discussion.)

The ideal mechanism for software management is for the OS to only permit software to be installed in a specific directory tree, one per application, instead of allowing software to sprinkle DLLs all over the place. Installation should be a recorded transaction which can be replayed in reverse by the OS to verify that software has truly been removed. This, along with really good privilege separation, will ensure that rogue applications cannot evade detection and removal.
Too bad Linux doesn't do any of this...

GoboLinux does. That's why I like it so much. (Well, that and the fact that both source and binary installs are first-class citizens). To remove a program completely, delete a folder (and run a script to automatically clean up some symlinks if you feel like being tidy). During the install, programs are only given write permissions in a specific folder, so this scheme is enforced by the system even if a badly behaved programs tries to put things outside its target directory.

It even goes one further than your suggestion, by separating directories by version number as well. If the different versions of the same program/library have differently-named files they can simply co-exist, and if they have conflicting names then it's a simple switch to decide which one you want to be "active."

The cool part: most programs don't require any modification to compile/install properly using the GoboLinux-provided installer (including anything based on autoconf or a decent Makefile, or standard Perl/Python apps).

I use Ubuntu currently (GNOME-based), but I saw an article (http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/2223 230) yesterday about KDE-based GoboLinux (http://www.gobolinux.org/), which sounds like it incorporates some neat ideas (for example, it re-organizes the standard directory hierarchy to be more intuitive for deskop users). I've used Kubuntu (4.10 and 5.04), but have found they never seem to be quite as stable as Ubuntu. I haven't tried Kubuntu 5.10 yet, though.

You might want to check out GoboLinux, an ongoing effort to build a distribution who tries to move away from the legacy filesystem structure. Here is an interesting read about the rationale behind the project, which explains why this is necessary and also perfectly possible.

You might want to check out GoboLinux, an ongoing effort to build a distribution who tries to move away from the legacy filesystem structure. Here is an interesting read about the rationale behind the project, which explains why this is necessary and also perfectly possible.

I agree that it should be the applications which have to conform, not the distros.

For starters, applications should not assume a certain directory layout, and should just install to the appropriate places based on the distro. Yes, this means that package managers might need to be slightly smarter than they currently are. But existing source-based installation already works for the majority of packages.

Case in point: GoboLinux. Now, those guys have introduced a more intuitive filesystem hierarchy that actually works and makes sense at the same time (which is rare.) However, Linux Standard Base, which depends on the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, outright prohibits their directory layout.

So... let's fast forward to when LSB is in widespread use. Application vendors start assuming that LSB is all they need to support "Linux". Distros who won't have a bar of the shitty legacy directory layout we've had to endure for decades will basically be punished for being forward-thinking.

So yeah, LSB sounds real great.

Let us take for example my 802.11b wireless USB adapter. Had it running in windows in 5 minutes with no reboots and all I had to do was stick a CD in the drive and click a few times on the mouse. Contrast this with Linux.

Well, so you're saying you prefer Windows over Linux because of vendor support. Fair enough. That's one of our chicken-egg problems, of course: vendors don't support Linux because there's not enough users because vendors don't support Linux, ad nauseaum. (I do understand the vendors concerns about the problems with supporting Linux (different distros, etc.))

Vendor support is one aspect where Windows beats Linux hands down, and I'm sure we can think of others. However, the reason I pick Linux over Windows or Mac OSX, and I know I may well be in the minority here, is because it is free software (open source). I support this idea and that's why I use it even though driver support is lacking (heck, I'm porting GoboLinux in my iBook, talk about unsupported...) and encourage my friends to "dump Windows". I do respect those who think differently, of course.

I think that for a long time Slashdot was a Linux-oriented site, and sometimes I forget that it has morphed into a more "generic tech site" as it grew.

• 1 CD (less than 250 MiB)
• Gobo linux style file system hierarchy (mac style)
• YaST
• Only base KDE/base gnome
• base system (system binaries)
• No other applications (exactly, don't need 10 text editors, 5 databases, 20 audio players, etc.)
• All programs are provided by their developers directly via Autopackage or BitRock, and other windows-like installers sice no one in the linux community seems to like app folders

Posted by Hisham on 23:11 Saturday 23 July 2005
from the penguins-for-brains dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "Linux technology drives a new fully-autonomous vehicle developed for a major U.S. competition. From the article: 'While enterprise and desktop discussions grab headlines, Linux is quietly infiltrating into much more mundane applications -- such as running the on-board computers of the University of Central Florida's entry for the DARPA Grand Challenge autonomous, unmanned vehicle competition. Prof. Kien Hua of the College of Engineering and Computer Science heads up the UCF program as team leader.'"

(Straight from the Bizarro World, where /. is still a Linux-oriented website.)

1) Non-administrator OS X users have access that's much closer to typical Unix root than to a typical Unix user. It's a moot point because...

2) The obession with the omnipotence of root comes from the days when all Unix use was multi-user. On a typical Linux desktop, the access a user already has is far more dangerous than anything he could do under root.

3) Please stop saying "boxen".

False. OSX and Linux won't let a normal user do "rm -fr /*" or anything like that. Even if you're an administrator, you still need to use sudo to execute privilieged commands, which prevents at the very least most dangerous typos (you might kill your data, but the system will run intact). If you had root (at least on a non-ACL-based Linux), you could do things like modify system binaries and configuration files, which is impossible as a regular user on every distro I've seen.

OSX does a great job of allowing people to run applications and such without needing enough privileges to seriously mung the system. A lot of this is due to the use of AppDirs, which I wish more Linux distros used (GoboLinux uses a scheme that's close to AppDirs). It eliminates the need for a package manager (goodbye RPM/apt!) and allows for a package to be installed or uninstalled with all dependencies in any directory; system-wide installations are only possible as superuser, but home directory installations can be done as easily and by a normal user without affecting anyone else. That may be why it seems that non-admin users have almost as much access as root; because the restrictions are only felt when you really try to do something that's going to affect the whole system.

Oh, yeah, and I'll say b0x3n whenever I damn well please. Nooch.

Try GNU Stow - it solves this problem very nicely, keeping each software package in a separate directory and symlinking everything to the relevant PATH directories. Pity there isn't a linux distro that uses it, or even comes with it - it would make things *so* much easier ... :-(

GoboLinux tries to do something like this, albeit not with stow. It puts each package in its own directory, and then symlinks everything back into better recognised locations... one of the GoboLinux philosophies is that the file system itself is the package manager. I presume that to uninstall a package, one would essentially delete the directory, and then do a file system sweep every so often of orphaned symlinks.

It's been mentioned on slashdot a couple of times. For whatever reason, the main reaction here seems to be rideculing the idea, claiming that package managers have already solved all those problems, and claiming that accessing everything through symlinks will slow the system down.

I don't use it, and go for Debian instead, if only because I prefer to have the much bigger support community. I do use Stow a lot with accounts on other people's systems, when I want to build my own miniature installation hierarchy and need a simple way to organise it. What Gobo's playing with doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me.

I'll join my voice to the ones praising Linux From Scratch. It's an amazing resource for learning how a Linux system is built.

We used it as a reference when we built the first full version of GoboLinux -- essentially following the steps of the book and adding our modifications (configure and makefile flags) to build the new directory structure, to make our "/usr"-less distro. :)

To this day, I refer to their build instructions every now and then. They also contain a good collection of security patches, so if you're into compiling your packages by hand, drop by at their site and see if they suggest any additional patches. LFS covers the basic system and Beyond LFS covers the additional stuff (KDE, GNOME, etc.).

Hey, it's Hisham! Glad to have you in on the discussion!

Mod at will

Which is to say, mod parent up for being an expert with an on-topic opinon. ;-)

I've looked at some of the work you guys have been doing, and I think you're on the right track. I have a few more thoughts that are going to be in my next blog (which I'm not going to replicate here, because that's a LOT of typing), but you guys are at least getting close from a source perspective.

For those who don't know what GoboLinux does, they break up programs into /Programs/$NAME_OF_PROGRAM structure. After that, symlinks are used in various places to maintain system wide compatibility. It's very interesting work, and is explained in more detail in the FAQ.

Mod at will, but I think it's on-topic to make a shameless plug here for the distro project I'm a part of, GoboLinux, since the entire point of the distribution is to make the radical changes to Linux that we consider necessary for it to overcome the problems you listed.

1. The packaging system is user-unfriendly.

Yes, and that is because in regular distributions, you have a "list of packages and dependencies" and then the actual files scattered through the file system, and those are held together by a database of some sort. The fact that in the actual filesystem you can move single files around, overwrite stuff regardless of the package list, etc. leads to loss of syncrhonization and corruption of the packaging control system.

2. The locations of programs are user-unfriendly.

True, and that is because of traditional Unix conventions created to deal with stuff such as /usr on NFS, etc. These days we have more advanced methods to deal with this, such as UnionFS, but those legacy paths are still there, complicating the overall structure of the system.

3. The folder layout of Linux systems is user-unfriendly.

That is the heart of the matter. Changing the directory layout is how we addressed problems 1 and 2 in GoboLinux. We organize all data each program under /Programs/[name]/[version] (not like Windows where parts are under windows/system, in the registry, etc.). With this total modularization, we don't need to maintain a database of "what belongs to whom", and it also gives the user a better view of what's in his/her system, and how are things organized.

4. The lack of a standard base of installed libraries is application (and thus user) unfriendly.

This is indeed a problem. In GoboLinux, we apopted a small standard "base" set (inspired by Linux From Scratch) which we then build on. This helps, but standardized "frameworks" of libraries would be a good thing -- note that desktop environments like KDE and GNOME do this to some extent.

So, if you want to take a look at an actual implementation of these ideas, give GoboLinux a go. :) It's a live CD (which can also install to the HD).

Mod at will, but I think it's on-topic to make a shameless plug here for the distro project I'm a part of, GoboLinux, since the entire point of the distribution is to make the radical changes to Linux that we consider necessary for it to overcome the problems you listed.

1. The packaging system is user-unfriendly.

Yes, and that is because in regular distributions, you have a "list of packages and dependencies" and then the actual files scattered through the file system, and those are held together by a database of some sort. The fact that in the actual filesystem you can move single files around, overwrite stuff regardless of the package list, etc. leads to loss of syncrhonization and corruption of the packaging control system.

2. The locations of programs are user-unfriendly.

True, and that is because of traditional Unix conventions created to deal with stuff such as /usr on NFS, etc. These days we have more advanced methods to deal with this, such as UnionFS, but those legacy paths are still there, complicating the overall structure of the system.

3. The folder layout of Linux systems is user-unfriendly.

That is the heart of the matter. Changing the directory layout is how we addressed problems 1 and 2 in GoboLinux. We organize all data each program under /Programs/[name]/[version] (not like Windows where parts are under windows/system, in the registry, etc.). With this total modularization, we don't need to maintain a database of "what belongs to whom", and it also gives the user a better view of what's in his/her system, and how are things organized.

4. The lack of a standard base of installed libraries is application (and thus user) unfriendly.

This is indeed a problem. In GoboLinux, we apopted a small standard "base" set (inspired by Linux From Scratch) which we then build on. This helps, but standardized "frameworks" of libraries would be a good thing -- note that desktop environments like KDE and GNOME do this to some extent.

So, if you want to take a look at an actual implementation of these ideas, give GoboLinux a go. :) It's a live CD (which can also install to the HD).

...their reorganizing of the filesystem so that it makes more sense to users is probably a good move in the long run.

I'm a programmer, and have been using Linux for more than 10 years, and the Mac OS X way makes more sense to me, too.

I think the only people who like the Linux filesystem layout are the old guys who've been using Unix for 30 years and are afraid to change.

GoboLinux
I am not clueless or Myths and misconceptions about the design of GoboLinux
GoboHide: surviving aside the legacy tree

GoboLinux
I am not clueless or Myths and misconceptions about the design of GoboLinux
GoboHide: surviving aside the legacy tree

GoboLinux
I am not clueless or Myths and misconceptions about the design of GoboLinux
GoboHide: surviving aside the legacy tree

"I'm used to it, and it makes sense in a way."

No, it doesn't make sense.

I am not clueless or Myths and misconceptions about the design of GoboLinux

ZeroInstall is happy to work without root priveleges, and GoboLinux has a "rootless" installation mode that allows you to install its packages in your home directory.

Unfortunately, both of these are relatively non-conventional package systems, and use an application-directory approach.

gobolinux is a linux distro with the solution to the above mentioned problem.
It simplifies package installtion and management by redefining the entire filesystem hierarchy.
As mentioned on their site:
In GoboLinux you don't need a package manager because the filesystem is the package manager

Sounds a lot like the philosophy of GoboLinux. They have make the filesystem the package manager. A very elegant solution.

Check it out.