GoboLinux Rethinks The Linux Filesystems

Is it just me, by pair-a-noyd · 2003-05-10 05:51 · Score: 2, Troll

or does this smack of M$ windows???

Re:Is it just me, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-10 05:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not a fan of Windows at all, as a matter of fact I can't stand it. However, it would be unwise to dismiss things purely because they are similar to how Windows implements them.

Just my 2 cents...
Re:Is it just me, by Eevee · 2003-05-10 05:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Of course it does. Using real words for directory names instead of easy to remember abbreviations is a mark of evil.

Remember, they did it just to piss you off.
Re:Is it just me, by Blaine+Hilton · 2003-05-10 05:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

Anything to make Linux easier is a plus, however there is one Windows and many, many Linux distros, this is like dividing the cause. However it does provide for far more flexibility and doesn't lock you into any one company.
Re:Is it just me, by Epistax · 2003-05-10 05:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Kind of stupid that since M$ is evil, you automatically declare everything about them wrong and anything else to be better. M$ has the most understandable file system I have ever seen. Extensions are a huge plus. Drive letters instead of arcane codes specifying various IDE devices, etc. Anyone should be able to use a computer without knowing a damn thing about it, beyond the input and output.

What I don't like about the M$ scheme is that they still wont accept "/" instead of "\", and they have a real boner for treating compressed files as directories.
Re:Is it just me, by Rui+del-Negro · 2003-05-10 06:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Are there any Microsoft tools for de/compressing normal archives (like ZIP, RAR, TAR.GZ, etc.)? Maybe in XP? I just use W2K + WinRAR.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong about treating compressed files as directories (especially if they have more than one file inside them). Technically, there isn't a big diference between, say, a ZIP file and a directory with file compression enabled.

Windows' default directory structure is reasonable, but I find some of the names too long (you can change them, BTW; programs will still install in the right places). I don't like drive letters at all, I would prefer drive / device names. It's possible to implement it with shares (ex., "boot:\\" instead of "c:\"), but some programs have problems with it.

On NTFS drives you can also mount volumes as directories (ex., mount your CD drive as c:\cdrom instead of e:, or whatever). NTFS is actually quite civilised.

RMN
~~~
Re:Is it just me, by pair-a-noyd · 2003-05-10 06:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Anyone should be able to use a computer without knowing a damn thing about it"

No. Stupid people should not be allowed to use computers. People should know how to use computers, not how to click and drool.
Stupid people sitting at a keyboard are hazards to the rest of the computing world. They wreck data, they spread viruses, the break hardware, they waste IT support time, they cost businesses money.

If stupid people were kept away from keyboards and stayed at home in front of a TV set where they belong and left the computing world to those that understand it, things would go smoother, there would be less computer problems,far less virus problems, much less IT support time wasted, and business would save a lot of money..

I fail to see why computers should be dumbed down for the dumb. It makes no sense.

Don't understand your computer?? Stick to your Playstation 2, and use your Gameboy as your PDA..
Re:Is it just me, by swimmar132 · 2003-05-10 06:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

No. Stupid people should not be allowed to use cars. People should know how to use cars, not how to accelerate and drool.
Stupid people driving a car are hazards to the rest of the driving world. They wreck mailboxes, they kill babies, they break cars, they waste auto mechanic time, they cost taxpayers money.

If stupid people were kept away from steering wheels and stayed at home in front of a TV set where they belong and left the driving world to those that understand it, things would go smoother, there would be less computer problems, far less accidents, much less auto mechanic time wasted, and tax payers would save a lot of money.

I fail to see why cars should be dumbed down for the dumb. It makes no sense.

Don't understand your car?? Go fuck yourself.
Re:Is it just me, by Blkdeath · 2003-05-10 06:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

sorry, but their file system is ass for anything beyond simple procedures... if you are trying to fix driver installations or uninstallations manually, or find your outlook express settings and address book to back up onto cd, then it sucks

I am glad you said that, sir. A long HEX string to represent an Outlook "identity"? Why not just name it the name of the identity, or the numerical order in which it was created? For that matter; why not put the danmed thing with the rest of the users' "Application Data" for chrissake?
Of course - because the NT filesystem layout is designed for a single user with multiple users kludged on top. Putting people's application settings (/data) as a trailer of the Windows install directory? So now we have to hunt down their individual Application Data as well as the "Identities" for their mail client (Oh, and unless you've backed up their Outlook identities from their original, fully functional copy of Outlook, you can't get them back. Mail folders and address book, fine, but not their account information. What an architecturally advanced system!)
And drive letters? Forget the first three (A, B, C) - they're reserved. Floppies and boot volume. The next one or two are scrapped for removeable media (DVD-R and CD-RW?), then something like Nero creates a virtual CD-ROM image device, let's call it 'F'. Now we're fundamentally limited to 20 additional drives/partitions - including network mounted filesystems - in our "easy to use" filesystem design. Is it any wonder NTFS now has the functionality to mount volumes as paths? Why, isn't that just emulating the sensible UNIX method that's been around for years? What happens in Windows when the, oh, say, \Windows directory gets a tad full? \Program Files perhaps? Well, we'll just remove \Windows\Fonts to a separate volume... Wait! Drive letters don't do that! Let's look to UNIX for answers!
Now we move on to "Program Files". What an oxymoron that is! Half the installed application gets dumped into \Windows\System anyways, which forces you to go through "DLL Hell" trying to uninstall any application. "I don't know, it's shared, but are other programs relying on it? Will my system cease to function if I say 'Yes' to any of these 54 'Shared' DLLs?"
"My Documents"? One folder, stamped on the root of the filesystem? What is it, the computer's documents? But wait - Win2k and XP have moved it to the oh-so-simple to find (not to mention making so much sense) location of "\Windows\Application Data\Username\My Documents". Sure; I'll bet any joe blow can find their documents there! (Doesn't the Windows directory come with a disclaimer that you'll irreparably damage your system if you touch the voodoo within? But how will I ever retreive my "My Documents" shortcut, errantly deleted from my desktop! My documents can harm the system? (Well, macro viruses, but hey ... ))
Now then. "Temporary Internet Files". Great idea; now if only they'd stop defaulting the bugger to 10% the total drive space! NO, I would not like to dedicate 12GigaBytes to temp files, thankyouverymuch. Same goes for you, Mr. Recycle Bin! I have to purchase a spare 40GB drive just to give me the 120GB I initially paid for!

--
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Re:Is it just me, by pair-a-noyd · 2003-05-10 07:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

I beg to differ. I think people SHOULD know how things work. People seem to know which celebrity is bopping which celebrity, what they ate last, what their farts smell like, what color underwear they wear but they have no clue how to use a standard transmission, have no idea where oil or gas comes from beyond the pump, no idea what that big thing is under the hood and the vast majority have no idea how to even change a tire.

Dumb people do society no favors. They contribute nothing to the betterment of mankind. They are for the most part, burdens because others have to carry their burdens for them. If people would spend more time improving themselves and less time worrying about other poeple's business the world would be a better place and they would be better off as people and could actually contribute something to society.

We are here to better ourselves, not to be stupid cattle consumers. Do you want to go through live being a dumb consumer? Personally, I take everything I get apart and learn every thing I can about it. I *LIKE* learning, it's GOOD.

Just being dumb lemmings is a terrible waste. There is more to life than 24/7 parties, booze, football, TV...
Work to better yourself and you help to make the world a better place. Ignorance is not beneficial to anyone...
Re:Is it just me, by secolactico · 2003-05-10 07:32 · Score: 2

Well, we'll just remove \Windows\Fonts to a separate volume... Wait! Drive letters don't do that!

You can always mount an ntfs partition inside a folder in another ntfs partition.

I have to run an app that, for some reason, has the log dir hardcoded. When the fs was getting full, I just added a new drive and mounted it into the appropiate dir.

And, yes, drive letters are a holdover that should have gone away a while ago. I don't remember using the "b:" drive since my "a:" was a 5.25 incher (and Sierra games came in, like, 11 floppies).

--
No sig
Re:Is it just me, by spectral · 2003-05-10 07:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is, actually, C:\Documents and Settings\user

Where the hell are you people getting this BS about it being in the windows directory?! It wasn't there in w2k. I should know, I'm running it right now. It's not there in XP (Professional). I should know, the computer next to me is running it.

That being said, the linux file system structure SUCKS! Windows isn't much better, but christ.. especially with the distros. Where is your config file for samba? Well, I don't quite know. It's somewhere in the /etc directory I'm sure. Is it in it's own subdirectory? Possibly! Let's go and see.

Having all the stuff AT LEAST symlinked from some common directory would be SO NICE. (cd /Programs/XFree86/4.3 .. oh look, everything X installed.) Yeah, that could get confusing. Therefore there might be a bin directory, a config directory, and a data directory. They can all be symlinks, I don't care, but if I had to come up with where KDE stores it's default menu, I would have no f*cking clue. Somewhere in /usr I guess? Might depend on the distro.. Agh.
Re:Is it just me, by jd142 · 2003-05-10 08:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

I am glad you said that, sir. A long HEX string to represent an Outlook "identity"? Why not just name it the name of the identity, or the numerical order in which it was created? For that matter; why not put the danmed thing with the rest of the users' "Application Data" for chrissake?

Yes, that's a real os problem there. Good thing Mozilla doesn't put all your information into a randomly named directory. Sheesh. (Ok, so it may not be random, but it's different on every machine I've ever used; I haven't bothered to look up their method of determining the name of that folder. You can change it; that's just the default. But that doesn't stop it from being a funny practice that needlessly complicates matters.)

Now we're fundamentally limited to 20 additional drives/partitions - including network mounted filesystems - in our "easy to use" filesystem design. Is it any wonder NTFS now has the functionality to mount volumes as paths?

Yeah, it's a good thing that Windows hasn't used unc names since at least win95 and NT 4. Oh, wait a minute, they have. Typing \\server\directory is sooo much more difficult than /mtn/server/directory.

Now we move on to "Program Files". What an oxymoron that is! Half the installed application gets dumped into \Windows\System anyways, which forces you to go through "DLL Hell" trying to uninstall any application.

Yeah, I hate it when an os has all these shared libraries living in different directories and programs require a specific library. I never know if it's in /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /opt/bin or some other place.

But wait - Win2k and XP have moved it to the oh-so-simple to find (not to mention making so much sense) location of "\Windows\Application Data\Username\My Documents".

So, have you ever used w2k and xp or have I just been trolled? I guess c:\documents and settings\USERNAME\my documents is too difficult? That's the default location and has been for several years.

So I guess my question is, did I just get trolled?
Re:Is it just me, by Stween · 2003-05-10 12:41 · Score: 2, Funny

There are many Windows also. They just aren't made by different people.
Re:Is it just me, by moncyb · 2003-05-10 13:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Where the hell are you people getting this BS about it being in the windows directory?!

Probably because that's where it used to be. Back when I was using Windows, programs would either put config files in the windows directory, or their program directory. All of the system config files were in the windows directory too.
Where is your config file for samba? Well, I don't quite know. It's somewhere in the /etc directory I'm sure. Is it in it's own subdirectory?

I don't know about samba specifically, but to follow good conventions, it should be called /etc/samba.conf or for multiple files be under the /etc/samba directory. Problem is, too many programs don't follow good conventions. This happens with MS Windows too.
if I had to come up with where KDE stores it's default menu, I would have no f*cking clue. Somewhere in /usr I guess? Might depend on the distro..

I suppose it depends whether the programmers think of it as a config file (/etc) or data file (/usr/share). Then again, considering we are talking about KDE/GNOME programmers, who knows. I don't think they get *nix type systems in the first place.
The Linux tree makes more sense to me. If all the programs would follow the conventions, then backing up /etc, /usr/etc, and /usr/local/etc saves all the global config info. /home contains all user files and config info. /var/log contains the logs (Can be skipped if you're not paranoid). If you're running a server, parts of /var/spool may need to be backed up, but probably not for a desktop machine. Everything else can be ignored. bin, lib, share are already saved with your software disks. When backup time comes, this tree is quite easy, and has been standard for quite some time.
The main problems occur when programs don't follow the conventions. Lynx puts the config file /usr/lib/lynx--probably because the project started on a different system (DOS I think). I think Apache used to put all their stuff in /var.
The worst offenders seem to be developers who just came from a home computer background (MS DOS/Win, Amiga, Atari, whatever). They don't get the directory structure, so things go in the wrong places. When I first started with Linux, I had the same problem. I was so bad, I even wrote my own search program because I didn't know about grep.
Re:Is it just me, by shyster · 2003-05-10 14:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Okay, here's the gospel on where My Documents lives. In 9x, it defaulted to C:\My Documents. But, if profiles were enabled (a Bad Idea(tm)) and seperate My Documents were created, it could bei n C:\WINDOWS\PROFILES\USERNAME\My Documents. This makes sense, since Win9x is not a true multi user system, that it would be on the root of the drive. Of course, it was also a special shell folder that lived at the top of the drive structure so that users would not have to know where it was located.
In NT4, it lived in C:\WINNT\PROFILES\USERNAME\. This makes sense because it needed to be seperate from other user's. And, of course, it was still a special shell folder directly accessible. And why in WINNT? Because the profiles directory contains a lot of stuff you shouldn't mess with. If you can navigate directly to the My Documents folder, then hopefully you know what you're doing. Most people use the shell icon.
In 2000 and XP (unless it's an upgrade from NT) it's now in C:\Documents and Settings\username. Probably to calm down /.'ers that couldn't understand why it was in WINNT. Now they've hidden a bunch of the system files, however, so as to make you less likely to play with them. And XP has a handy C:\D&S\All Users\Shared Documents for everyone to access...and it has it's own shell folder too. Isn't that nice?
Oh, and every Windows since 95 has the ability to easily and/or programmatically change the location of the My Docs. Usually to a mapped (or unmapped) network drive. And profiles in the NT vein are accessible by the simple run command of %userprofile% without having to know the location of it.
Why do /.'ers (in general) speak so highly of the flexibility of *nix, but never bother to find the flexibility in Windows? Don't like the Program Files location? Change it! Don't like the My Documents location? Change it! Don't like Explorer as the shell? Change it!
Re:Is it just me, by spectral · 2003-05-10 18:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is certainly the unix way I guess. There shouldn't need to be a special packaging command to help me find the files though. This filesystem still makes more sense to me. If all things install to their own separate directory tree, then symlink them so everything also appears it's in one spot (like /Configurations .. or just call it /etc since it's shorter ;)), we have the best of both worlds. I shouldn't have to depend on some package manager tracking every file that a program needs to run, especially if it's made with scripts afterwards. MacOSX has it right here: Most things are just a 'Package'. A Package is a compressed folder/disk image, and is treated like one by the OS.

Therefore double clicking it will run the program, but you can easily go right in side of it and see all the files, and treat them like files. This works on the command line too. (cd /MacOSXAppsDirectory/CompanyName/Program.Package/e tc will work. Of course those aren't real directory names, but you get the idea.)

There are similar commands for any packager because there needs to be. There's also a command for sorcerer that finds files it's not tracking. When wanting to COMPLETELY remove something, I have to check that list as well. And then hope that IT is complete. Being able to check a directory for a "data" folder, back that up if I want, then blow out the directory would be nice. (Yes, this does screw up symlinks. Therefore it MIGHT be better to have the directory for the program contain the symlinks, as opposed to scattering the symlinks in to the one solid directory. Unless there's a way to reversely traverse a symlink in constant time..)

Again, a pipe dream I'm sure, and I'll admit there are certain things about the linux/unix file system that are nice. Configs mostly in one place, etc. But yikes it's certainly a mess. Something like this would help a great deal, I think.

(Another example: at a konsole, hit k, then hit tab. How many things come up? How many of those are kde programs? Are those ALL the kde programs? Probably not. What if you want to see all the executables that are part of the 'kde distribution' ? I guess you're off checking your package manager: Make a list of what you consider the kde distribution, run that list through the package manager, dump that in to a tiny little thing that sees if they're executable, etc.

Not too much different than just using ls/find/grep/bash/whatever, but what if your package DB gets corrupt? If bash/ext2 gets corrupt you have a bit more to worry about I'd think.)

FS/OS support for links makes it so easy to do such cool stuff that's essentially impossible in some other operating systems (Shortcuts are files that are treated specially by the shell in Windows. Not by the OS's FS layer. Therefore, they're nowheres comparable.) Why don't we use that support to make a FS structure that makes sense to everyone, and kicks ass? You can keep the old layout, and have a nice new layout too. Best of both worlds.
Re:Is it just me, by BrokenHalo · 2003-05-10 19:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

I guess there's probably nothing inherently wrong with "meaningful" names for directories - for those who feel they need them. There is probably something to be gained from this when trying to "sell" Linux to the novice user.
I'm content, however, with a directory structure that has been used with little variation on any number of flavours of Unix systems for 30-odd years, because it works.
As an aside, I can see this thing causing major problems for anybody wanting to compile their own packages through the ./configure && make && make install cycle. You would probably have to create so many symlinks, you might as well stay with the old system anyway.
Re:Is it just me, by thundercatzlair · 2003-05-10 21:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Now *that* is funny .

Thanks to all of you guys... this has been hilarious to read.

I think the funniest thing is that all of you are at least partially correct.

Here's a little idea... take a walk, clear your heads, and try to think about how the other 'side' could have a valid point, even though it doesn't exactly agree with yours.

It just seems to me that most of these debates get so heated and out of control because the people involved in them are too close-minded to realize that there is a chance that their own opinion may not be 100% correct, or complete. It's like fricking Congress... Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other, and NOTHING gets done. Here's the thought process, IMHO:

"I am right and you are wrong"...
"I may not be right, but you are still wrong"...
"You may be partially correct, but I'll be God damned if I'm going to admit it to you"

But ya know... why should I be telling you this? If you all take my advice I won't be able to laugh at your posts... hmn... yeah, I know... that was a bit condescending. Maybe I'm hoping I get some juicy replies to this... that I can laugh at. :)

I guess time will tell, maybe no one will reply because they have taken my advice, and world peace will ensue!!!! well anyhow... off to bed.
Re:Is it just me, by ahknight · 2003-05-10 23:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hate to break this to you now, but with the proper definitions passed to configure it would work just fine ... just like it does on this here Mac. =)

./configure --lib-prefix /Library/dylib/ --prefix /Applications/CLI/

Great Idea! by Lu+Xun · 2003-05-10 05:53 · Score: 2, Funny

While we're at it, let's rename all the streets so we all have to relearn how to get where we want to go! Excellent!

--
That's not a soda... it's a caffeine delivery device!

Re:Great Idea! by phaze3000 · 2003-05-10 07:08 · Score: 4, Funny

Pah, you Americans and your right-angle turn streets. Come to Britain and experience true street confusion - streets that turn right/left, with 'new' streets that carry on in a straight line, streets that change their name half way along, crazy one way systems and roundabouts. Seriously, non-intuitive names are a piece of cake by comparison.

Of course, I quite *like* the mad streets over here, it's symptomatic of the wealth of history this country has, and grid-layout streets IMO feel very very artificial by comparison. But then, I'm biased.

--
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
Re:Great Idea! by praksys · 2003-05-10 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your analogy is damn near perfect, although it might not get you the conclusion you want. In "Seeing Like a State" James Scott argued that all sorts of government actions are driven by the need of government to re-shape society so that it is more comprehensible from the point of view of government beaurocrats. He gave street plans as an example. In old cities you find very complex street layouts, with lots of twists and turns, and dead ends, and different sized streets. Locals who live in these places have no problem understanding all of this and finding their way around. In fact these old disorderly layouts often make a good deal of sense given the local geogrpahy. Still, to outsiders who visit, and to the government that is trying to manage all of this, it looks like a mess. They much prefer orderly grid layouts that can be comprehended at a glance, and managed easily.

I think the situations with the layout of Unix filesystems is very similar. "Locals" have no trouble finding their way around, and even find that the layout makes a good deal of sense. Unfortunately Unix is getting a lot more visitors than it used to, and those visitors are starting to feel like tourists in Venice (i.e. lost). If you want those visitors to find Unix "useful" rather than "quaint" you need to re-think the street plan.
Re:Great Idea! by swv3752 · 2003-05-10 12:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

We have those too, just usually they are in boneheaded layed out developements.

My sister lives in one where they plunked a golf course in the middle and didn't bother to rename streets. So, they deadend at the golf course then continue, on the the other side. If that is not bad enough, there are streets that end in "T" intersections, that then continue a block or two later.

Of course even worse is Cape Coral, FL. You will have a "28th Street", "28th Terrace", "28th Court", "28th Avenue", and so on. Then there are the canals. Then canals will cut a street, and it will continue on with the same name on the other side. Imagine a maze of streets with near identical names except one might be "St" or "Terr" and every so often if you make it to the right street you find your way blocked by a canal. I can see why postmen go crazy.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life

3 comments and nearly /.ed by evilviper · 2003-05-10 05:54 · Score: 5, Informative

First Link:

Differences between GoboLinux and a traditional Linux system

Once you installed GoboLinux, your experience will be greatly improved if you are aware of the following facts... :-)

* In the GoboLinux hierarchy, files are grouped by their functional category (executables, libraries, and so on). There are links at the classic directories you are used to (/bin, /usr/bin, and so on), but remember that they all point to the same place. This is a huge advantage, as it means, for example, that you'll never have to search for a library throughout your filesystem again -- it will always be in /lib (and in /usr/lib, because they point to the same place! -- no worries about compatibility).
* A little known UNIX rule states that what defines the superuser is its user id (which is zero), not its name. Through the years, there has been a convention to call the superuser "root". In GoboLinux, we chose to choose the superuser's name. It's called "gobo". It's fun, less ambiguous and even a bit more secure (since most crackers will try to login in your machine as root, you can setup a dummy, easy-to-break "root" account that will serve as a cracker-trap). In any case, if you wish to change the superuser's name back to "root", it is easy to do so.
* There are symbolic links relating most of the usual UNIX directories to the GoboLinux tree. Therefore, you will find directories such as /etc, /var/log and /usr/bin in the expected places. However, some directories, such as the users' directories, didn't need to be linked to their "legacy" locations. This way, for a given user called "joe", you'll have, instead of /home/joe, /Users/joe. Notice also that the superuser's directory is no different than the ones from the other users, so, gobo's directory is at /Users/gobo. Mount points are under /Mount, not /mnt.
* Another major difference between GoboLinux and most Linux distributions is that it does not use a BSD nor a System V initialization procedure. Instead, it has its own. At /System/Settings/BootScripts you will find a few files that command the entire boot procedure: Init and Done run at system boot and shutdown, respectively; Single and Multi are used after Init for initialization of single-user and multi-user modes. Halt and Reboot are used after Done for each specific kind of finalization. The Options file separate site-specific settings from the rest of the scripts, and Tasks serves as a function library.

Second Link:
Overview

GoboLinux is an alternative Linux distribution which redefines the entire filesystem hierarchy. In GoboLinux we have paths such as /Programs/XFree86/4.3/ and /System/Settings/BootScripts/Reboot. Like it? Read more...
News
It's official: GoboLinux 006 is out!

May, 9th, 2003 at 1:05

Five months after the first alpha version, GoboLinux version 006 is now the official stable release. There are too many improvements to list here, the greatest ones being /System/Links/Shared, FiboSandbox, and last but never the least, GoboHide. As usual, the ISO is compiled for i686 and is a "live CD" so you can try out GoboLinux without actually installing it, so you have no reason not to check it out. :)

Existing users don't need to reinstall from scratch (actually the idea is to never have to reinstall from scratch!). An upgrade mini-HOWTO will soon be posted on our mailing list.
To-do list: ideas for the future

May, 2nd, 2003 at 17:04

GoboLinux is all about cool ideas. A lot of them float around in the mailing list, but end up buried in the archives. Now gobolinux.org has a place to store them, with an optimistic name of To-do List. It is part of the documentation section.
New GoboLinux webpage u

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Re:3 comments and nearly /.ed by AvantLegion · 2003-05-10 07:32 · Score: 2, Funny

In GoboLinux, we chose to choose the superuser's name. It's called "gobo". It's fun, less ambiguous and even a bit more secure

Fun, indeed! Unix/Linux geeks sure know how to have a good time. Wheeeee!
Re:3 comments and nearly /.ed by andyr · 2003-05-10 08:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Notice also that the superuser's directory is no different than the ones from the other users, so, gobo's directory is at /Users/gobo.
A severely bad idea.
A lot of systems I maintain have NFS-mounted home dirs - /home/ is on another machine.
When the sh*t hits the fan, I need to be able to log in - as root. The last thing I need is root's home dir inaccessible.
There are decades of wisdom behind Unix, most of which I have no desire to re-learn. Not broke ? Don't fix.
Cheers, Andy!

--
Andy Rabagliati
Re:3 comments and nearly /.ed by sheriff_p · 2003-05-10 10:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." -- Henry Spencer

--
Score:-1, Funny
Re:3 comments and nearly /.ed by nathanh · 2003-05-10 11:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are decades of wisdom behind Unix, most of which I have no desire to re-learn.

Well, to be honest, it's decades of tradition not wisdom. There's not a lot of wisdom in names like /usr and /etc. Wtf are they supposed to mean? Yes, *I* know what they mean, but I've been using UNIX for more than a decade. I'm not going to fool myself into thinking they're good names.
Not broke ? Don't fix.

Though that I can agree with. However the joy of Linux is that people can take it in a new and interesting ways. If this guy wants to do this then more power to him. I'd be interested to see if the idea becomes popular.
Though surely this would have been easier with a VFS view in GNOME or something.

Finally! by TwistedSpring · 2003-05-10 05:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

I've always held that the filesystem organisation in linux is the primary reason that new users find it hard to get to grips with. Names like etc, bin, var, usr, are meaningless to newbies, and novice users can get confused with /usr/local/share vs. /usr/share Hopefully gobo have also sorted the Installing-a-program bomb-blast, i.e. as soon as you install something it scatters a million files all over the filesystem in different directories that makes it impossible to keep track of and (sometimes) impossible to completely remove if you compiled it rather than used a package manager. It's about time this was re-vamped if linux is to become a viable desktop OS.

Re:Finally! by TwistedSpring · 2003-05-10 06:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's definitely a certain amount of fear of change being exhibited by the linux users who've posted before i did. Linux is an evolving OS, if you don't let it change it'll never have the chance to be what you want it to be; a windows-beater. Personally I use windows 2000, though i did spend half a year with only Linux installed on my machine, and I administer linux and BSD servers. My dad recently installed Lycoris linux, and it looked like a step in the right direction. I don't advocate Linux as a good desktop operating system, it simply doesnt have the application base to compete yet, what it does have is a lot of applications that nearly do what the commercial apps do, but don't quite. This is mostly due to a shoddy windowing system (X) and a nonstandard way of programming for window managers (do you use QT, or GTK?).

Do you want more people to use Linux or not? Or are you happy to be an elitist group who prefer to keep linux usage Your Secret. If you pride yourself on being able to navigate the Linux filesystem, maybe you should learn some new skills, like being able to adapt to change.

This post was not directed at the Anonymous Coward above, it's just general observations prompted by his sarcastic response :)
Re:Finally! by mdfst13 · 2003-05-10 06:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think that this operates rather backwardly. Instead of making /bin a symlink to some new directory, it would make more sense to make a conglomerate directory that includes the contents of /bin, /usr/bin, etc. One can do this comparatively easily in a GUI environment (or in a database filesystem--it's just a matter of query structure).

There are several problems with symlinking all */bin directories to another directory. First, some of these directories are put in different places for good reason--/usr/bin for system apps, /usr/local/bin for locally installed versions that may clash with system apps, ~/bin for user apps. The /opt structure exists to separate out packages so that they don't conflict with other apps (like GamBas and Gaby do by default). If you put them all in the same directory, you are stuck with name clash again. Further, /bin, /sbin, and ~/bin usually have different file permissions. For most desktop users, this is unnecessary, but do we really want a different underlying file system structure for desktop distros than for server distros?

I would rather that all versions of Linux retain the same underlying file structure. Any changes that need to be made to make it easier for people to understand are better made at the view level rather than the functional level.

That said, I do think that it is good that people are starting to think about how to make file systems more understandable for newbies. I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Keep the good; replace the bad; add enhancements. That's improvement.
Re:Finally! by TwistedSpring · 2003-05-10 06:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

One day you will realise that not everyone is a COMPYOOTAR EXPART and you will understand why microsoft does not let new computer users mess around in the system files. May I point out that some distros of linux also hazard you on meddling with core system files.

There is such a warning in windows 2000 and XP, but remarkably, you can turn it off, and it never shows up again. Microsoft windows (to SOME VAGUE extent) caters for people who know what they're doing as well as newbie users (admittedly I would like options to never delete to recycle bin, and to disable irritating confirmation dialogs, but these are minor niggles), and it's very sensible for them to assume you know nothing on a clean install (since if they assumed you were an expert on the first install, new users would be dumbfounded).

If there were no newbies, there would be no experts. Everyone is a newbie at some point. I certainly was. So give them some assistance instead of crapping all over them.
Re:Finally! by samhalliday · 2003-05-10 06:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

dont be ridiculous... those FS are designed with efficiency in mind, and careful refining of 30+ years of UNIX experience. just becuase the FS hierarchy is different from windows is not a good enough reason to change it. people worry too much about how these 'newbies' are goign to think about GNU/Linux, when in the end, getting used to a new filesystem is not a hard thing, with some form of "intro to GNU/Linux" book in front of you you can learn the basics in a day. add on top of that, end-users (non-root accounts) do not even NEED to see the FS hierarchy, they see /home/$USER and that is easy-peesy to understand.
/usr and /usr/local are entirely different things, and not the worry of users. they are also very intuitive. /usr is standard system stuff, /usr/local is locally hacked stuff, so i can place 'my' hacked version of any program in /usr/local and override the system one (if i were the sysadmin).
this whole FS reshaping is a rediculous idea and goes against everything the LSB has been tryig to fix, since there are so many deviants of GNU/Linux. i hope this distro dies off damn quickly... (how to lose all your karma in 10 seconds)
Re:Finally! by oyenstikker · 2003-05-10 06:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Would it be possible to have some sort of combination of file system and organization such that: /bin/someprogram/ == /usr/someprogram/bin/ /lib/someprogram/ == /usr/someprogram/lib/ /log/someprogram/ == /usr/someprogram/log/ /etc/someprogram/ == /usr/someprogram/etc/ /share/someprogram/ == /usr/someprogram/share/ /bin/all/ == /bin/*/* (== /usr/*/bin/*) /lib/all/ == /lib/*/* (== /usr/*/lib/*) rm -rf /usr/someprogram would completely delete the program, no having to go into /usr/bin/, /usr/share/, /etc/, /var/log/, et cetera individually. Your $PATH would only need to be /bin/all/, your $LDPATH would only need to be /lib/all/ The same form could be followed for 'info', 'man', 'sbin', 'lock', 'include', et cetera. You could have programs in /opt/ and /local/ as well as /usr/, and /bin/, /lib/, . . . would also pull out of those. Just me foaming at the brain.

--
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Re:Finally! by AvantLegion · 2003-05-10 07:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

when in the end, getting used to a new filesystem is not a hard thing, with some form of "intro to GNU/Linux" book in front of you you can learn the basics in a day.

And you've summed up the problem nicely. Most people sit at a PC and learn Windows *without* a book, as names like "My Documents" (guess what goes there: your documents!) and "Windows" (hey, I bet all the files for Windows are there!) are intuitive enough to be understood without a book.
Contrast with /usr/local/, /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/bin, ... not even close.
Do people really imagine future computers using such archaic relics like these file systems? I'm real sure Data busts out the symbolic links when Picard & Co. are on their little escapades....
Re:Finally! by Malcontent · 2003-05-10 07:54 · Score: 4, Funny

"Hopefully gobo have also sorted the Installing-a-program bomb-blast, i.e. as soon as you install something it scatters a million files all over the filesystem in different directories that makes it impossible to keep track of and (sometimes) impossible to completely remove if you compiled it rather than used a package manager."

Yes. Windows has this problem solved completely. For example in windows when you install a file it goes into c:\program files\progname. All the libraries go into c:\winnt\system32. The config files sometimes go into the c:\program files\progname or into c:\winnt\systems32 ir get merged into a binary file called the registry. Any files that are shared go into c:\program files\common files\progname.

Linux will no go anywhere until program installs are as clean as windows. Look how nice the windows system is!

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Finally! by hswerdfe · 2003-05-10 08:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is a Very Very Good Idea.

MS is adding something like this into longhorn.
first time heard about it, it was called "Object File", I'm sure the name will/Has change(d) to something more stupid proof.

Some of the functionality you want can be kinda emulated, with a system of file seaches in shell scripts, and Linked Files, and folders.....

but it doesn't quit behave, in a completely transparent manner....(which would be nice)..... ...sigh to bad I can only rant about it, I have no Idea how to go about adding something like this.....

--
--meh--
Re:Finally! by cygnusx · 2003-05-11 23:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

That doesn't make a ton of sense either, though. /bin contains plenty of applications that a regular user will need. In particular, the shells, not to mention a TON of other apps (g[un]zip, tar, etc). Whereas /sbin contains apps only necessary for system administration. The name /boot is totally opaque to this, and would be even more confusing, at least IMHO.
I didn't mean club /sbin and /bin into /boot/bin. I meant, /sbin => /boot/sbin and /bin => /boot/bin. /boot would contain the kernel.

This way you could still move the 'essential-to-boot' files off to another partition by mounting 1 parition -- /boot -- elsewhere (instead of mounting 3), make it read-only, whatever.
Well, part of me thinks that people have trouble with the Unix filesystem simply because they expect it to be organized one way (like Windows) when it's not. So, rather than trying to understand the system, they decry it as poorly designed, and refactor it so it's "easier".
You are right in saying people decry Unix's filesystem (or Unix's GUI, for that matter ;)) because they don't understand it. However, Unix's failure to provide alternatives that make sense to different classes of users is unforgivable. Its love-it-or-leave-it image and resistance to anything that makes Joe User's life easier has cost it dearly in the personal computer market, and will continue to cost it.

My point is simple: the traditional Unix FHS is *not ok* for joe user. The OSX FHS is. Which one a joe-user-targeting-distro should use is a no-brainer. The small mercy here is that symlinks can continue to ensure that compatibility is maintained.

Re:SQL FS by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-10 05:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Good thing about SQL core file systems is that you can have any god damn view you want, want to make it look like unix? not a problem. Define youre own View. Linux lagging behind? forsure. BeOS and now Longhorn have SQL cores.

Nice idea by Dalroth · 2003-05-10 05:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Nice idea, though not really new. I frequently use my own directory structures on my systems to organize things better.

My only comment: the directories should be lowercase. Why? Because it's easier to type, no other reason! :)

Bryan

Bad, Terrible Idea by evilviper · 2003-05-10 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is a terrible idea... It makes a complete mess of the Unix filesystem, just so that the distro maker doesn't need to edit /etc/ld.so.conf to include /usr/lib as well as /lib

The only minor problems I have EVER experienced with libs/headers is that some will install themselves in a subdirectory, and software that uses it expects it to either not be in a subdirectory, or expects the subfolder to be in the LD/C/CPP path. That is easilly fixable, and this distro doesn't address that issue at all.

Hey, why make a mess out of the Unix filesystem anyhow??? If you want is a bit less complex, throw in a few symlinks. No need to cause all sorts of #%@^ to happen with this type of hack.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Re:Bad, Terrible Idea by Phroggy · 2003-05-10 08:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is is a terrible idea... It makes a complete mess of the Unix filesystem, just so that the distro maker doesn't need to edit /etc/ld.so.conf to include /usr/lib as well as /lib

You obviously don't get it. This wasn't done to make things easier for the distro maker - this makes things a pain in the ass for the distro maker, I'm sure. This was done to make things logical and orderly for the USER. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought it would be nice to do something like this, since I'm far too lazy to actually go to the trouble.

You should take a look at what Apple has done with Mac OS X - they've taken a similar approach, except that they just hid the legacy UNIX directories from the GUI, and tacked all their stuff on top. I expect that they'll slowly move things out of the legacy UNIX directories as it becomes practical to do so, taking an approach very similar to Gobo in addition to what Apple has already done - at least I sincerely hope that's the direction they take. It's nice that Apache's DocumentRoot is /Library/WebServer/Documents, but not so nice that the configuration file is /etc/httpd/httpd.conf.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

I like it, but.. by _aa_ · 2003-05-10 06:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

in other locales will the directory structure still be in english?

For all those who ask, "Why?" by PeterClark · 2003-05-10 06:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

I say, "Why not?" I think this is a great idea; I'm all for a better directory structure. Just because the present system has been around for 30+ years doesn't mean that we shouldn't take a second look at it and see if it can't be improved.

Now would anyone care to guess how many knee-jerk posts there will be, like "if you like a sane directory hierarchy, use OS X, ya weenie!" or "if it's not broke, don't fix it!" To which I respond, where do you keep your Mozilla plugins?

/usr/share/plugins
/usr/share/netscape/plugins
/usr/share/mozilla/plugins
/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
/usr/lib/mozilla/1.3a/plugins
/usr/lib/mozilla/1.3/plugins
/opt/netscape/plugins
/opt/mozilla/plugins
/usr/local/mozilla/plugins
ad naseum...
- Much applause to the guys who were willing to think a little more critically about what we can do to make Linux just a little better.

Re:For all those who ask, "Why?" by smcv · 2003-05-10 07:44 · Score: 4, Informative

/usr/share/plugins /usr/share/netscape/plugins /usr/share/mozilla/plugins

Well, share is for platform-independent data, so that's out. (A Mac and a PC with the same Linux distro and packages should be able to use the same NFS-mounted /usr/share tree, hence the name "share"; this matters more on traditional Unix hardware than it does now).

The rest are all possibilities, depending on whether you or your distribution vendor installed Mozilla, and whether you or they consider Mozilla to be a monolithic "black box" (like Windows apps) or an integrated part of the system (so it's easy for Galeon or other Gecko-based browsers to embed it).

It's valuable to have /usr/local and /usr separate - that way you, the local sysadmin (installing self-compiled stuff to /usr/local) and your package management system (installing to /usr) will never get in each others' way. /opt vs. /usr/local is a bit more subtle - you're meant to use /opt for identifiable "modules" which could be removed without side effects (I use it for games), and /usr/local for things which fit into the traditional Unix hierarchy (if you installed Mozilla in /opt the executable should be something like /opt/mozilla/mozilla or /opt/mozilla/bin/mozilla, if you installed in /usr/local it should just be /usr/local/bin/mozilla). Some distros don't have even have a /opt directory in the default install (Debian doesn't).

I realise it's not ideal, particularly with some of the more subtle points (share vs. lib, /usr/local vs. /opt), but it's pretty much standardized by now.

(I wish all my dotfiles followed a similar hierarchy, actually - I've started using symlinks to get the caches in ~/.tmp and the important config files in ~/.etc, so I can leave out .tmp when I do backups)

Some of the merging Gobolinux does seems like overkill; for instance, the benefit of having the /usr hierarchy is that you can put all the critical system files (/bin, /lib, ...) on a separate, smaller partition, which can sometimes even be read-only, guaranteeing that you have a bootable system.

Another article... by illsorted · 2003-05-10 06:08 · Score: 4, Informative

Kuro5hin also has a good article on GoboLinux.

root = gobo? by bazik · 2003-05-10 06:08 · Score: 5, Funny

In GoboLinux, we chose to choose the superuser's name. It's called "gobo". It's fun, less ambiguous and even a bit more secure (since most crackers will try to login in your machine as root, you can setup a dummy, easy-to-break "root" account that will serve as a cracker-trap). Remember to set the roots prompt to PS1="C:\>" for the ultimate cracker-trap! :)

--

--
One by one the penguins steal my sanity...

Re:root = gobo? by sootman · 2003-05-10 14:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Great idea, except that everyone who reads the manual (ahem) will set the root user to 'gobo' and the password to 'gobo'. :-)

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.

Standards, standards by gallir · 2003-05-10 06:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah,, yeah, standards are good, you have many to choose from.

--
sgis ddo ekil t'nod i

doesn't seem like a bad idea... by Vellmont · 2003-05-10 06:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

I know the unix file hierarchy well, but I've always thought it was arranged haphazardly. Why are there six different places for system executables? (/bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,/usr/sbin, /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/sbin)? That's not even counting the alternative directories that some programs like to be installed under like /opt, or X11 programs.

The one thing I don't like is that they renamed root to gobo. While root doesn't have much inherent meaning to it, gobo has even less. If you're going to rename root, why not pick something more meaningfull like administrator, admin, superuser, BigManWithTheTopHat, etc? I guess I haven't checked recently, but is linux still limited to 8 characters for the username?

--
AccountKiller

Unix filesystem a mess already by arevos · 2003-05-10 06:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you think the Unix filesystem isn't a mess currently, then either you have to look again, or you're using a floppy distro under 2 meg in size.

Even when you know what each directory is meant to have in, which the rather excellent LFS is good at doing, it's still an awful system. In fact, if you know where everything goes and why, it's even harder not to consider it a bad system. Unix was alright in its day, and certainly better than some other popular operating systems around now, but I'd hardly claim that the standard filesystem for Unixes is anything but a hack upon a hack upon a hack.

Personally, I really liked the idea of reorganising directory structure. Unix isn't perfect, and can, in many, many, many ways be improved.

**Mirrors needed badly** by paranoidd · 2003-05-10 06:24 · Score: 2, Informative

The website gobolinux.org is currently hosted on a very "humble" server. If anybody is able to make any mirrors (especially for the ISO image), please do so. We were arranging some mirrors when we posted on Kuro5hin, but as probably always happens to everyone, we were not ready for Slashdot yet. If you want to help, drop a message to lucasvr(at)terra.com.br and we'll arrange something. Thanks!

Re:**Mirrors needed badly** by rafasgj · 2003-05-10 09:16 · Score: 2, Informative

We are providing a .torrent in gobolinux.org.

The link for the .torrent is:

http://gobolinux.org/download/iso/GoboLinux-006. is o.torrent

Spread it.

-- Rafasgj
-- GoboLinux Scripts Maintainer

Re:Close but not quite. by lokedhs · 2003-05-10 06:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

No they shouldn't. Plain and simple. Case-insensitivity has no business in a file system.

Allow me to expand a little on why this is the case:

Case-insensitivity is a complicated business as soon as you leave the simple domain of the english language, and this is the reason you usually only head english-speaking people wanting case-insensitive file systems.

An example: German has a letter ß, which in upper case becomes SS. tchüß -> TCHÜSS. Now, when lowercasing, you can't just map SS to ß, instead it becomes ss. I.e. TCHÜSS -> tschüss.

Do you start to realise the implications this has on a case-insensitive file system? (the question to answer is: is "tchüß" and "tschüss" considered to be the same file?)

It gets worse. In french, as spoken in france, the letter ë is converted to uppercase E. I.e. citroën -> CITROEN. But in Canadian french, it becomes Ë. I.e. citroën -> CITROËN.

When you start to bring in other languages, for example the Japanese full-with and half-width latin characters it starts to get really messy.

In order to handle all of this in a case-insensitive file system the file system itself needs not only to be aware of the intricate details of character encodings and casing for different languages, every single file system operation would also have to look at the currently selected locale in order to determine wether two names are equivalent or not. If you believe this is simple, read the FAQ's at the Unicode site and you will never again suggest that the file system should be case-insignificant.

However, making a user application work independently of case in file names is a reasonable idea. However, it would have to be specified by the UI framework, for example Gnome. I'm not sure exactly if that idea would work at all since I haven't given it much thought.

I'm so happy the Unix file system is case-significant.

Explanation. by juuri · 2003-05-10 06:40 · Score: 5, Informative

I'll help you out here.

/sbin utilities needed to get the the system to a booted state

/bin bare essential utilities needed to manipulate the system once booted or before multi-user mode

/usr/sbin system control programs needed to manage or alter a system once in multi-user mode

/usr/bin/ programs for interacting with a multi-user system

/usr/local/sbin/ system control programs that don't come from the os/hardware vendor

/usr/local/bin/ other programs that don't come from the os/hardware vendor

Of course many modern lunix distributions break this by placing files wherever people think is cute, much like how the .org, .net and .com have lost their meanings.

--
--- I do not moderate.

Re:Explanation. by bmetz · 2003-05-10 08:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think he needs a lecture. We all know the reasons why they slowly added new directories.

And they are all asinine.

Users want stuff to work. They don't care that 20 years ago hard drives were too small to fit all your files or that some weirdo grouping of your programs allows you to share parts of the installation across your non-existant network of linux machines. My login script has over 60 lines dedicated to finding moron binary directories like /usr/local/X11/bin and /usr/local/java/bin. This is not acceptable.

I'm not sure if this gobolinux stuff is the solution but at least it isn't happy with the status quo. IMHO the biggest problem with linux is that the users don't think there's anything wrong with it.

--
What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/

And THAT is important? by martin-k · 2003-05-10 06:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Please... spend your energy on improving general Linux usability, not on just renaming a few folders.

There are many more important areas that could be improved, like a consistent clipboard, working drag & drop, unique hotkeys in menus (or: hotkeys at all!), KDE's Start menu in most distributions containing literally dozens of programs, etc. etc.

If somebody uses the Linux shell, remembering that /dev means "devices" and what /usr/bin is for is the least of his worries...

Martin Kotulla SoftMaker Software GmbH

--
SoftMaker Office for Windows|Linux|Android

Oh, great... by St.+Vitus · 2003-05-10 06:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Just what we need. Linux distributions named after Fraggles.

Almost there by vmalloc_ · 2003-05-10 07:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is interesting, but it really doesn't get there. Mind you, I have always been a large advocate of changing the unix file structure: It is a messy, disguisting frankenstein of combinations from the old unix system days, that even experienced unix hackers get messed up in. Hell, until I got a book on porting unix software, -I- didn't know how the unix file structure was defined, and I've been doing this for 5 years!

As for the "Frankenstein" description, consider this: When a file is supposed to be in /usr/local for BSD, the same one is supposed to be in /opt/bin for SysV. It's a mess!

What needs to happen is that a new STANDARD needs to come out, and everybody needs to support it. Of course, nobody will ever support new standards, so that's out of the question, but if you really want to improve the unix file structure you have to do that. Anything less than that, and you're simply adding to the fragmentation problem.

Finally, there are two technical problems with this guy's method, too. Firstly, all the directories use Capital letters, which is unneccessary for clarification, AND makes it harder to type. Same goes for the full name of the folders: reducing "Executables" to "exe" would be just as recognizable, AND a lot easier to deal with in a shell command.

Take your head out of your ass. by Inoshiro · 2003-05-10 07:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

You have no right to judge how people live their lives. Disagree if you want, but don't go feeling all smug and supperior because you're doing something that other people aren't. That's just ego stroking over your hobby.

Do you understand anything about people? Different people are different in different ways. While you may like to think that people don't want to sit down and understand are stupid, you're ignoring people who don't have time for things, or simply aren't interested in learning something. Part of how humanity has moved forward (besides designing tools that reduce work by not forcing you to spend years in university for every appliance you own), is by specialization. I can't know everything about everything if I want to get anywhere in life. As early as grade 9 I need to start specializing the classes I take towards an eventual career if I want to be in that career by my mid-20s.

If thinking you're better than other people because you know about computers is how you base your fragile ego, I really want you to go outside into the real world and do some growing up. Your intollerance is disgusting. Grow up. No one is better or worse than anyone else because of what they know, people are only better or worse because of how they act. Your actions leave much to be desired.

People like you are the reason that most people stop reading Slashdot or Kuro5hin.

--
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.

Re:Take your head out of your ass. by be-fan · 2003-05-10 08:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think the guy you were replying to has a point. I don't buy into this "I'm OK, you're OK, never judge anybody" BS. Not being judgemental is okay within certain limits, but there are limits. It's fine is somebody don't want to learn about computers or cars or whatever. But there is a large segment of the population that doesn't want to learn about ANYTHING. They don't know anything about the world, but the still think they have a right to spout their opinions about politics. They know nothing about business, but still think they have the right to complain about corporate practices. I'm talking about the kind of people who have no idea what the first ten amendments are, no idea what the platforms of the people they're voting for are, no idea about anything beyond what's on FOX tonight and what J-Lo's ass is doing this week. There are some limits to how intellectually lazy we should allow people to be. After all, we make judgement calls about child molesters, murderers, theives, prostitutes, etc, so why not
stupid people? To tell the truth, I have more respect for a prostitute than someone who is intellectually lazy.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...

Heh by autopr0n · 2003-05-10 07:22 · Score: 2

In my town we have a mirrored setup, 4th street and south 4th. That way we can expand all that we want too. I once lost control on south 4th and dove over the median, the other lane, and down a hill, while spinning around. And then drove through a fence.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

*nix Filesystem, Not Just Linux by Bob9113 · 2003-05-10 07:28 · Score: 2, Informative

GoboLinux Rethinks The Linux Filesystem

Filesystem Hierarchy Standard has included the BSDs since 1995 - it's more than just Linux. I'm all in favor of questioning the assumptions to avoid getting caught on a local maxima, and I think this one is a dead end. FHS has some historical baggage, but it also has the strength of years of tempering.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance

Thank god by Hard_Code · 2003-05-10 07:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've been suggesting this for a long time, and I usually only get blank stares. I have yet to find ONE good reason to maintain the "traditional" unix filesystem layout on a desktop machine (well, even server, but let's not go there).

The Unix tradition of splitting up applications by *type of content* instead of *application* is crazy. Thre are two bad reasons: 1) "Hey, I can throw every little binary in 'bin', go me!" 2) "Hey, I can throw every little library in 'lib', go me!". Parts of an application are hardly ever dealt with seperately. Does anybody install only the binaries of an app, and not, say, it's libraries?? or it's docs? No, these all belong to a cohesive unit that should be installed, uninstalled, moved, and run together.

As for #1, when your primary interface to the OS is a GUI desktop, having every piddly executable on your system in one directory doesn't really confer any benefit. As for #2, not all applicatinos need to use all other applications to begin with, and for those who do, why should those libraries not then be considered reusable common libraries, and then and only then, linked or put in a common place?

The system i'd propose would look something like this:

all applications have a structure like:

[appname]/[bin,lib,doc,conf]

All user applications live in: /apps/[appname]

You may choose to symlink the nested app dirs into /apps/[bin,lib,doc,conf] if you wish, like Stow does.

All "system" apps (e.g. stuff that is typically in /sbin) live in a mirror structure at: /sys/[appname]

Again, any utility binaries or common libs *may* be symlinked into the base /sys dir.

Application configuration would live with each app, no more throwing every fscking config file into the mud pit of /etc.

Things like 'man' would index *into* the seperate app dirs, not the other way around.

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?

Re:Thank god by suntse · 2003-05-10 08:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

"I have yet to find ONE good reason to maintain the "traditional" unix filesystem layout on a desktop machine (well, even server, but let's not go there)"
No matter what version of unix, or unix-like OS I log into at work, I already know the filesystem hierarchy, and I don't have to waste any time looking around in a bunch of random directories for the information I need. Once I learn the filesystem layout for any unix, I roughly know it for every unix.
"Does anybody install only the binaries of an app, and not, say, it's libraries?? or it's docs?"
Yes. There are these things called "shared libraries". The nice thing about them is that, no matter how many apps are using them, I only have to install one copy them. If I put all the libraries for an application in a directory for the application, I'd have to install say, all the gtk libs, for every gtk application on my system.
"As for #1, when your primary interface to the OS is a GUI desktop, having every piddly executable on your system in one directory doesn't really confer any benefit."
First of all, please don't tell me what my primary interface to my operating system is. Secondly, if your primary interface is a GUI desktop, then it doesn't hurt to have all the apps under bin, either. Most users don't run applications by browsing to the specific app on the filesystem in a file manager. The run the applications from a menu, or an icon. This provides a virtual directory structure, that is abstract, that allows a GUI user to organize their applications as they want, without breaking the standard filesystem layout.
Re:Thank god by suntse · 2003-05-10 12:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe you should bone up on your reading comprehension skills before you attack people.
all applications have a structure like: [appname]/[bin,lib,doc,conf] Read the above a few times, please. And if you are now going to suggest that the lib directories under each app will just be a symlink to /usr/lib, or something similiar... I fail to see how having a tangled mess of symlinks layered over a standard unix file layout is any sort of improvement.
Re:Thank god by Arandir · 2003-05-10 16:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

The Unix tradition of splitting up applications by *type of content* instead of *application* is crazy.

Yes it's crazy. There are some systems that do it the "non-crazy" way, but not many. And none which are popular or particularly current. I can think of RISCOS and NeXT and that's it.

Windows certainly doesn't do it that way. Do you seriously think I can type in "msword" at a DOS/NT prompt and expect anything meaningful to happen? You'll get an error message unless you have specifically set the path to wherever it's installed. DOS/NT has no idea where "msword" is unless you tell it. That's why people run that program using the menu or clicking an icon. But oddly enough, UNIX knows exactly where "abiword" is when you type it on the command line.

It would certainly be nice to have a RISCOS like directory structure. But that's not what GoboLinux is doing.

p.s. If you can think of any sensible mechanism to make a RISCOS like directory structure usable for any arbitrary application under UNIX, please let me know, because I would like to implement it. Making it work for just ROX applications isn't good enough. It needs to work for XEmacs, Konqueror, OpenOffice, and anything else not specifically designed for that infrastructure.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned

Re:Make it like Windows. by AvantLegion · 2003-05-10 07:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Do you know how confusing for a newbie it is to see directories like /bin /sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin /etc /lost+found ??!!!

Not just for newbies. Here's the question: is there ANYTHING inherently "better" about the old UNIX filesystems compared to possible alternatives?

What advantage is there to /usr/lib and /lib over "/libraries"??

None.

The staunch unwillingness here to seriously consider alternatives makes me think the Linux community is not NEARLY as "forward-thinking" as claimed.

I use Linux too. I dual-boot a Linux (Gentoo) and a Windows (which one depends on speed of PC) on all my machines except my LAN server (that's Linux only). Linux is my main OS. I've learned the file system. But I will not pretend that it's intuitive or something that we should fight to preserve.

Oh no, it's different! Let's hate it! by Three+Letter+Acronym · 2003-05-10 07:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch. Wow, I'm really suprised at the venemous reaction from you guys. Now, no matter what you think of this idea, some of the things I've seen posted here are disgusting.

All this is is a different filesystem in ONE distro. It's not being federally mandated, nor is it going to become a standard that you have to deal with. It's one group's solution to what they perceive is a problem. If you don't want to use GoboLinux, then don't. There's no reason for everybody to pull out their pitchforks and torches.

I even read some post where the guy said something along the lines of I hope they die a quick and painful death. That's fucking pathetic.

--
"Freedom is letting people do things that you don't like." -Linus Torvalds

Learning the Linux structure, not changing it by mnemonic_ · 2003-05-10 08:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Maybe distro developers could try creating better ways of teaching the Linux directory structure instead of changing it. For example, a sidepane that appears in folder windows, describing the purpose of the folder currently being viewed. Or perhaps Windows-esque "tooltips" appearing over color-coded system folders that provide similar information. Both methods would be infinitely more convenient than constantly referring to documentation.

The directory structure in Linux is one of the biggest shocks to experienced Windows users who are accustomed to navigating the files and folders of Windows, and its complexity is a major area that needs to addressed if Linux is to make gains in the desktop arena.

Re:Oh no, it's different! Let's hate it! by Enahs · 2003-05-10 08:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Amen to that! You should have read the entirely different response to this on kuro5hin.org; I think I was the one that came the closest to a dissenting opinion, and I just wanted to know why they didn't just use Encap or GNU Stow! :-D

Personally, I think it sounds like a great idea. If you're putting together a desktop system, there's really no need to carry around the old UNIX cruft. Honestly. And as much as the fanboys jizz all over OS X, I'd think this would be a welcome change. I suppose if this came with a system capable of real translucency and drop shadows, the l33t boyz would be jizzing instead of bitching, eh?

--
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.

Re:Oh no, it's different! Let's hate it! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-10 08:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

>>I even read some post where the guy said something along the lines of I hope they die a quick and painful death. That's fucking pathetic

This is why Linux will never succeed on the desktop. The guy is making a change that could improve usability. It may work. It may not. But before it is given a chance to succeed, all sorts of losers come out of the woodwork and denounce him for even trying.

NT and POSIX by Rui+del-Negro · 2003-05-10 09:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

During the 80s, the UNIX with the biggest user base was... XENIX (made by none other than Microsoft), which was later sold to SCO, and which was one of the systems used as a basis for the POSIX standard. NT (and, subsequently, W2K and XP) does comply with a big chunk of the POSIX standard (I suspect one of the reasons was to make it easier to port software from Xenix to NT - Microsoft didn't want to lose market share to the other UNIXes). In some ways, though, NT is closer to VMS than to XENIX.

Two old but interesting articles about the evolution of NT:

http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?IssueID =97&ArticleID=4500

http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?IssueID =97&ArticleID=449

NTFS has other nice features such as symbolic links, named streams, non-continuous files, etc.. I learned a few tricks a couple of years ago in a newsgroup discussion from a guy working at Microsoft. Some of these features appear to be completely undocumented (or at least the documentation is very well hidden).

RMN
~~~

Re:Sore wrists from long words by Rysc · 2003-05-10 09:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think that most of the resistance to gobolinux has to do with the fact that it's different, not on any merits or faults of these differences. There are a whole bunch of UNIX geeks out there, especially in the university environment, who would lose their jobs if UNIX were easier to use and more intuitive. Just because you're semi-autistic and can manage to hack out UNIX commands and use the CLI doesn't mean that you're smart, or elite or anything else other than that you have a memory for arcane trivia.

I think most of the people cheering gobolinux on are doing it out of ignorance. A few probably are well aware of what it all means, and I am eager to hear their reasoned opinions.

It's got little to do with it just being different. Okay, some (ie "It's different but not better so why change it at all?"), but not much.

Gobolinux proposes changing /home to /Users. This is not less confusing, only confusing in a different way. Why would a user be looking for his files under a directory called Users (even supposing he was browsing from / to begin with?)? To the kind of nonsavvy person this is supposed to cater to, Users is not going sound like a place for users personal files, it just sounds like it from the perspective of engineers who are used to thinking in such terms. An average joe is much more likely to descend into a directory called home to see if it's his home or not.

And notice the difference here... why /Users and not /users? The capital letter wont really matter to your desktop users, but it sure as hell matters to a command line junkie. Tab completion is case sensetive (even on OS X where the filesystem is not) and over time it's a LOT more effort to hit SHIFT+U than it is to hit u.

I could continue like this, but I'm sure you get the idea. There are good reasons for the way things are, it's not simply a matter of intertia (although, admittedly, a lot of it is) and it is most certainly not simply a desire of the elite to keep themselves in power.

I once advocated radical changes such as gobolinux proposes, but then I investigated why things were. And once you know why, it becomes very hard to argue to change. You become aware of what kinds of problems must be taken into account. I am sure most Linux distro's have had someone do what I did, and they seem to mostly reach my conclusion: It's hard to change, there are too many technical reasons why it might be a disaster, too many personal feelings are involved, and the system as it is Works Now. If it aint broke (or at least if it aint real broke) don't fix it.

--
I want my Cowboyneal

Re:You've answered your own question by samhalliday · 2003-05-10 11:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

in fact, libraries are a new thing... in those days everything was statically linked. i really dont see how this relates to RAM being cheap though... or how you see gobo as being 'logical' when the *NIX filesystem is the perfect example of a logical FS heirarchy. if you dont see it as logical, then you don't understand it.

Congratulations, you just reinvented SCO OpenSewer by Christopher+Biggs · 2003-05-10 11:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

This idea has been done.

It was called "SCO OpenServer 5", and I first used it in 1994. It was hideous. Any time you installed a traditional unix program you shat all over the symlink hierarchy and generally hosed something.

It made mangement of vendor supplied packages slightly simpler, but the whole point of open systems is that you are not locked into dependence on your OS vendor!

--
-- veni vidi nuclei deceri --- I came, I saw, I dumped core.

GoboLinux bittorent available by detsch · 2003-05-10 11:43 · Score: 2, Informative

The BitTorrent for GoboLinux is available at:
http://f.scarywater.net/GoboLinux-006.iso.torrent
(those using the gobolinux.org torrent are advised to switch to the scarywater.net torrent, since the gobolinux.org one is based on a bttracker running on a machine with a dynamic IP)

Blasphemy! by Rui+del-Negro · 2003-05-10 13:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Are you suggesting that anyone needs more than 640KB...?

RMN
~~~

NT and POSIX (not) by jamezilla · 2003-05-10 19:12 · Score: 2, Informative

This is already off-topic, but NT is has some POSIX compatibility so that Microsoft can sell it to the government. The US government requires POSIX compatability for all its OS's. And, btw, the POSIX subsystem in NT is totally broken -- MS made sure it will never run anything but the most basic stuff.

MHS - Modern Heirarchy Standard by GlobalCombatDotCom · 2003-05-10 19:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hopefully GoboLinux and LinuxStep will join the the MHS standard so that this kind of improvement can start to spread to other distros.

http://mhs.sf.net

The goal of the MHS project is to define a Modern Hierarchy Standard for UNIX-like operating systems which will further enable them to evolve, innovate, grow, and compete with Windows and other modern OSes.
Specifically, MHS technology will provide the following benefits:
100% Application Directory Oriented
Internationalization of Directory Names
More Intuitive Directory Names
Fewer Root Directories
Support for Case-Insensitive File Systems
Full Coexistence with Legacy FHS
Increased System Flexibility
A new hierarchy will be a big enough change to make distributions switch to application directories.
Set of environmental variables pointing the location of major system directories.
Applications would no longer need to hard code directory names.
System level directories grouped together under a common directory. (/System)

Currently, the directories are expected to be moved to the following locations: /bin => /System/Commands /sbin => /System/Commands /boot => /System/Boot /dev => /System/Devices /etc => /System/Config /lib => /System/Libraries /proc => /System/Process /mnt => /Mount /opt => /Apps /tmp => /Temp /home => /Users /usr/bin => /System/Executables /usr => mostly placed under /System /var => mostly placed under /System

All paths will be lower-case on a case-sensitive file system. As shown otherwise.

Application developers and distribution makers will need to use the /Apps directory rather than cramming everything into /usr.

The autoconf family of tools will be patched to support the new hierarchy which will make most applications translate easily.

Although it can still be done, MHS will not support the same level of shareability (i.e. mounted over a network) as the legacy FHS standard.

FHS can be emulated via symlinks and MHS can be emulated on existing FHS systems. A kernel/file system hack of some kind may be done to have the legacy directories disappear in directory scans, to help improve user friendliness.

In addition to the standard, the project is developing a set of scripts that will setup the new hierarchy on existing FHS compatible systems.

The standard will not be finalized until a Linux distribution ships based upon it.

--
Bryan

CT

Slashdot Mirror

GoboLinux Rethinks The Linux Filesystems

81 of 590 comments (clear)