Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense? - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense? - Ubuntu ; In article , Hadron wrote: > Then you dont understand WHY the current setup in Linux is there. It's > not perfect but it is efficient and practical in a multi partition > system for one thing. And this is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

  1. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    In article ,
    Hadron wrote:
    > Then you dont understand WHY the current setup in Linux is there. It's
    > not perfect but it is efficient and practical in a multi partition
    > system for one thing. And this is not an improvement for "linux" - it's
    > a silly nod in the windows direction from one minor distro in an
    > obviously blatant attempt to attract the dumber windows users who feel
    > that the location of their programmes is an important issue. It's as
    > clear as day to me that this is a doomed initiative and will only end in
    > tears.


    Why do you think it is a nod in the Windows direction? It seems to me
    more a nod in the OS X direction, although it is quite a bit different
    from both Windows and OS X.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  2. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    Tim Smith writes:

    > In article ,
    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Then you dont understand WHY the current setup in Linux is there. It's
    >> not perfect but it is efficient and practical in a multi partition
    >> system for one thing. And this is not an improvement for "linux" - it's
    >> a silly nod in the windows direction from one minor distro in an
    >> obviously blatant attempt to attract the dumber windows users who feel
    >> that the location of their programmes is an important issue. It's as
    >> clear as day to me that this is a doomed initiative and will only end in
    >> tears.

    >
    > Why do you think it is a nod in the Windows direction? It seems to me
    > more a nod in the OS X direction, although it is quite a bit different
    > from both Windows and OS X.


    I cant say I know much about OSX so can not comment. I was referring
    more to the "Programs" directory setup.

    What they need is a properly configurable back up utility which "knows
    about" program config files.

    Currently I link all config files I change to a ~/configs directory e,g
    you might see ~/configs/etc/asoundrc.

    It's silly. It's counter to pretty much ALL the existing setups. It's
    yet more dilution and confusion. Want to do something constructive? Get
    all the developers together who create and maintain the 10s of sound
    systems and fight out a single solution which works across the
    board. Get people to commit.


    --
    - "Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out
    some major $$$ to develop this thing. This is a great opportunity for
    alternative operating systems to intercept the ball, and run it back for a
    touchdown." comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  3. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 20:04:54 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    >>> It makes *that* case easier.
    >>>
    >>> Q: how many of you back up one app?

    >>
    >> I didn't say back up one app. I said, restore one app, a much more common
    >> scenario.

    >
    > Restore one app from what? A backup?
    >
    > I dont want to back up binaries as a general rule. I want to back up
    > data and configurations.


    I used to do that as well, but then I came across a situation where I could
    no longer get ahold of the version of the app that was installed, and the
    configuration file had changed, so I ended up having to reconfigure it.
    It's just easier now to backup the apps as well as the configuration, one
    step for restore, and since the apps won't change, they will only get
    backed up once and not on differentials.

  4. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    Hadron wrote in
    news:ftb1pc$e25$1@registered.motzarella.org:

    > Erik Funkenbusch writes:
    >
    >> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:15:51 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Having per app directory storage physically done is crazy - for a
    >>> start it makes back up harder. Even if the physical files are only
    >>> linked to then its a total mess.

    >>
    >> Actually, it makes it easier. Suppose you need to restore just one
    >> app. How do you do that? You have to know every application the
    >> system installs, every config file, every library, everything in
    >> /usr/share, etc..

    >
    > It makes *that* case easier.
    >
    > Q: how many of you back up one app?
    >
    >>
    >> With everything in an application directory, including configuration
    >> files, then you simply restore that directory, then create the
    >> symlinks (and I would expect a decent app would include a script to
    >> recreate its symlinks).

    >
    > You hope.
    >
    >>
    >> Then, if you want to delete it, just run the "remove symlinks" script
    >> and delete the directory. Gone.
    >>
    >> I think it's a better approach, although it does create a few
    >> security

    >
    > Its a new approach at odds with the system used for years. There are
    > not enough advantages to make it a valid "paradigm shift".


    So what you are saying is that Linux needs to be vastly improved before
    it can gain wide acceptance, but at the same time......

    .......you can't change anything that might make it easier for new user's
    to come on board and be able to learn a new OS.

    Quite the paradox I'd say.



  5. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
    > architecture which is totally against every linux document out there and
    > fixing apps which simply do not work.


    That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
    Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?

  6. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    netcat writes:

    > On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
    >> architecture which is totally against every linux document out there and
    >> fixing apps which simply do not work.

    >
    > That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
    > Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?


    I don't know what you are talking about. But if the sum of your
    contribution is to point out my typo of "hacks" then, err, well done.

    --
    XP can't be selling well, or we'd have the wintrolls crowing about it all
    over the advocacy newsgroups.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  7. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:48:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > netcat writes:
    >
    >> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
    >>> architecture which is totally against every linux document out there
    >>> and fixing apps which simply do not work.

    >>
    >> That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
    >> Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?

    >
    > I don't know what you are talking about. But if the sum of your
    > contribution is to point out my typo of "hacks" then, err, well done.


    Couldn't care less about typo's since I make enough of them myself. I'm
    merely laughing at your hypocrisy.

  8. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    netcat writes:

    > On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:48:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> netcat writes:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
    >>>> architecture which is totally against every linux document out there
    >>>> and fixing apps which simply do not work.
    >>>
    >>> That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
    >>> Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?

    >>
    >> I don't know what you are talking about. But if the sum of your
    >> contribution is to point out my typo of "hacks" then, err, well done.

    >
    > Couldn't care less about typo's since I make enough of them myself. I'm
    > merely laughing at your hypocrisy.


    Using a word for the sake of it keeps you amused? What hypocrisy are you
    referring to?

    --
    If you take both of those factors together then WinXP is a flop, selling
    *less* than Win 98 by a factor of two.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they the lunacy in advocacy

  9. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:35:42 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > netcat writes:
    >
    >> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:48:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> netcat writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
    >>>>> architecture which is totally against every linux document out there
    >>>>> and fixing apps which simply do not work.
    >>>>
    >>>> That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
    >>>> Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?
    >>>
    >>> I don't know what you are talking about. But if the sum of your
    >>> contribution is to point out my typo of "hacks" then, err, well done.

    >>
    >> Couldn't care less about typo's since I make enough of them myself. I'm
    >> merely laughing at your hypocrisy.

    >
    > Using a word for the sake of it keeps you amused?


    You used it first.

    > What hypocrisy are you referring to?


    Yours.


  10. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    netcat writes:

    > On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:35:42 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> netcat writes:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:48:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> netcat writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
    >>>>>> architecture which is totally against every linux document out there
    >>>>>> and fixing apps which simply do not work.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
    >>>>> Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't know what you are talking about. But if the sum of your
    >>>> contribution is to point out my typo of "hacks" then, err, well done.
    >>>
    >>> Couldn't care less about typo's since I make enough of them myself. I'm
    >>> merely laughing at your hypocrisy.

    >>
    >> Using a word for the sake of it keeps you amused?

    >
    > You used it first.
    >
    >> What hypocrisy are you referring to?

    >
    > Yours.
    >


    Please elaborate. At the moment you are doing a Tatto Vamp/HPT/Liarnut -
    e.g just making things up to suit your agenda.

  11. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    Sarah D. wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> "Sarah D." writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Having per app directory storage physically done is crazy - for a
    >>>> start it makes back up harder. Even if the physical files are only
    >>>> linked to then its a total mess.
    >>>>

    >>
    >>>
    >>> I've never had a problem doing backups at work using windose
    >>> servers. I don't see this as being a valid complaint. The
    >>> Unix/Linux world seems to be full of "purist" types that think
    >>> things should always be done the old way.

    >>
    >> I'm not sure you really understand why the config files are where
    >> they are then.
    >>

    >
    >
    > I was told that in the old days, disk space was at a premium and
    > shared libs were a way to optimize space. Part of the architecture
    > was done to accommodate this scare resource. It would not surprise
    > me to learn that other parts of Unix were designed to accommodate
    > other limitations (resources or knowledge) in the early 70's.
    >
    > Imho, the /etc branch is ok for operating system parameters. But I
    > would prefer that each app is installed in it's own directory with
    > it's own libs. Disk space is really not an issue anymore.


    What's wrong with putting things
    in /usr/lib, /usr/bin/, /usr/share/man, /usr/share/doc, /etc?

    They aren't spread all over the place, they follow a specific and documented
    pattern, the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS). Any person can enter such
    a filesystem and find their way around it with ease.

    That's what standards are for.

    >
    > It's demonstrating yet another instance old tech types clinging to the
    > belief that the old ways were best. Imho, I think that attitude has
    > cost Linux serious growth and performance over the last decade.


    No, you are mistaken. It is tech types "clinging" to a STANDARD, which makes
    communication easy.

    > Not everything windows is junk. Not everything 'Nix is excellent.
    > Imho, there is room for change in Linux and I think we would all
    > benefit from it.


    I agree.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  12. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:39:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > netcat writes:
    >
    >> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:35:42 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> netcat writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:48:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> netcat writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
    >>>>>>> architecture which is totally against every linux document out
    >>>>>>> there and fixing apps which simply do not work.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
    >>>>>> Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't know what you are talking about. But if the sum of your
    >>>>> contribution is to point out my typo of "hacks" then, err, well
    >>>>> done.
    >>>>
    >>>> Couldn't care less about typo's since I make enough of them myself.
    >>>> I'm merely laughing at your hypocrisy.
    >>>
    >>> Using a word for the sake of it keeps you amused?

    >>
    >> You used it first.
    >>
    >>> What hypocrisy are you referring to?

    >>
    >> Yours.
    >>
    >>

    > Please elaborate. At the moment you are doing a Tatto Vamp/HPT/Liarnut -
    > e.g just making things up to suit your agenda.


    Like them, I'm having fun at your expense. If you don't get it then that
    just makes it even funnier.

  13. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    On 2008-04-07, Gregory Shearman hit the keyboard and wrote:



    reading "Hadron's opinion" through Gregory Shearman's reply:

    >
    >
    >> Not everything windows is junk. Not everything 'Nix is excellent.
    >> Imho, there is room for change in Linux and I think we would all
    >> benefit from it.

    >
    > I agree.
    >

    Gregory,

    You could ask him how his "best distro" comes along, or what
    is his contribution to make GNU/Linux "better"? Constant
    whining how it doesn't stand up to "MS" standards? While a
    "M§ box" in most cases can only be improved by buying (or
    use some shareware/freeware) SW in GNU/Linux can be improved
    by anybody who bites his teeth into it.

    Unfortunately for me, writing SW for any OS is way over my
    head so I can't contribute to it, but then I don't drag
    GNU/Linux down as Hadron does.


    Dragomir Kollaric
    --
    This signature is licensed under the GPL and may be
    freely distributed as long as a copy of the GPL is included... :-)


  14. Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

    Dragomir Kollaric wrote:

    > Unfortunately for me, writing SW for any OS is way over my
    > head so I can't contribute to it, but then I don't drag
    > GNU/Linux down as Hadron does.


    He claimed he contributed to some OSS project somewhere but danged if anyone
    can get the details out of him. ;-)
    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    ....Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid.

    Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
    Good to the last supper

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2