Re: Ubuntu should move all binaries to /usr/bin/
I don't know if the original poster has since learned this, but I think it's worth noting several things, in case the person coming over from Windows hasn't figured it out. (If this is a non-issue, please disregard this email.) 1) Linux/Unix executables don't have a .exe extension. Typically, they don't have any extension at all, and can conceivably have every extension imaginable (including common ones like .sh for scripts). If you're looking for an executable, forget looking for its extension. Try using the "find" command to look for executable files, or if you know the one you want, already, use the "which" command, as above. 2) You almost certainly don't need to find that file. As mentioned above, if it's not in your PATH setting, then something is broken. This is pretty rare. If you need to execute a command--from a terminal or from an "open with" dialogue, just type the command (in the appropriate dialogue box, as needed). If you want to open a PDF, and the GUI hasn't figured out how to do that, type "acroread", "evince", or whatever you have installed into the box. 3) +1 about Windows having an absurdly hard-to-use filesystem, where finding binaries/executables is concerned. Once you learn Linux, you'll bless its build-in filesystem, and probably find little/no need to mess with it. For that matter, +1 to all the stuff about /bin, /sbin, /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/sbin, /opt, etc. having useful, specific purposes. Sure, it bugs me when some program insists on installing someplace I don't think makes sense. Usually it'll let me change it upon install, if it's from a script, but if not, I can still put it into the PATH if it's not already there, and after that it doesn't matter! So long as the uninstall functionality works for a given program (which it REALLY, REALLY should...), and the executable structure of the program is remotely sensible (looking at you, OpenOffice, Mozilla, etc.), it's all gravy, so far as I'm concerned. Proprietary programs are the more problematic culprits, anyway, and there's not much a distribution can do about them, so far as I'm aware. 4) I've never liked Fedora, anyway. :-p I'm sure the real gurus here know a lot more about the specifics than I do, so have at it! --Dane On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 02:40:31AM +0800, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > > We could even enhance which to look in obvious places off the path > (perhaps > > locatedb?) and print the output on stderr if we really wanted to. > > Please don't - 'which' is used in scripts and needs to preserve its > current behaviour. Any extra behaviour should be added to a > different/new program. > > -- > Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: help regarding whom excatly i should contact.
Hi! On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 12:14:47AM +0530, joy chalissery wrote: > here is the link where is gave something in writing > http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/28923/ > please do read the comments following the idea > admin talked about getting involved with development team. Thanks for your interesst in improving the software-center! > I am not a programmer of expert level but would like to give some > suggestions . > Saw about the teams and categories. > But no where there was a team which took in suggestions may be about a > single software in bulk. > i can do art,bit of programming, but more importantly give suggestion on > improving which can be easily > acted upon by developers. > > So the question is which team to join/ location of a suggestion box ? where > i could contribute to ubuntu. There are various way to approach the software-center team, check http://launchpad.net/software-center, it links to the spec that has a subsection about how to contribute. We are keen to hear your ideas and we always welcome help! In addition to suggestions, the best is probably to start hacking at the source code, even if you are not a expert programmer. We are happy to help you getting started, there is the software-store-developers mailing list and the #software-center irc channel where we hang out and can help. The scarce resource for us is people working on the implementation of all the great ideas that are floating around. So every bit helps! Thanks, Michael -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: help regarding whom excatly i should contact.
Thanks for the prompt reply. lol on me for thinking those lists aren't that active :-) proven otherwise now ;) still i did visit the site mentioned in your reply.Will take a second look at it again. it would have helped a lot if launchpad featured a category where extras or miscellaneous people like me who find it difficult to decide to join under a particular category. Speaking with respect to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter how can u help color coded sections. Those even are just highlighted words with no links regarding how to join or links relating to the actual topic. After lot of clicking did i mange to find this devel lists( though i dont regret finding this now :-) ) I just hope contributing became lot easier so that ubuntu as a whole can grow more rapidly. also i hope u saw a brainstorm link i gave searching deeper in launchpad found some ideas in my brainstorm link have been reported as bugs and are in development. -thanks On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Michael Vogt wrote: > Hi! > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 12:14:47AM +0530, joy chalissery wrote: > > here is the link where is gave something in writing > > http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/28923/ > > please do read the comments following the idea > > admin talked about getting involved with development team. > > Thanks for your interesst in improving the software-center! > > > I am not a programmer of expert level but would like to give some > > suggestions . > > Saw about the teams and categories. > > But no where there was a team which took in suggestions may be about a > > single software in bulk. > > i can do art,bit of programming, but more importantly give suggestion on > > improving which can be easily > > acted upon by developers. > > > > So the question is which team to join/ location of a suggestion box ? > where > > i could contribute to ubuntu. > > There are various way to approach the software-center team, check > http://launchpad.net/software-center, it links to the spec that has a > subsection about how to contribute. We are keen to hear your ideas and > we always welcome help! > > In addition to suggestions, the best is probably to start hacking at > the source code, even if you are not a expert programmer. We are happy > to help you getting started, there is the software-store-developers > mailing list and the #software-center irc channel where we hang out > and can help. The scarce resource for us is people working on the > implementation of all the great ideas that are floating around. So > every bit helps! > > Thanks, > Michael > -- -- joy -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu should move all binaries to /usr/bin/
Sure, using find or which, etc., can be used to locate a particular app, but that's not really the point. Why not simplify things and put all binaries under /usr/bin? Then you don't have to teach users about silly distinctions like "Oh, see, if it's an app that's meant to be used by a System Adminstrator, then it goes into /usr/sbin". Who cares? Just put everything in /usr/bin to keep things simple. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Dane Mutters wrote: > I don't know if the original poster has since learned this, but I think > it's worth noting several things, in case the person coming over from > Windows hasn't figured it out. (If this is a non-issue, please disregard > this email.) > > 1) Linux/Unix executables don't have a .exe extension. Typically, they > don't have any extension at all, and can conceivably have every extension > imaginable (including common ones like .sh for scripts). If you're looking > for an executable, forget looking for its extension. Try using the "find" > command to look for executable files, or if you know the one you want, > already, use the "which" command, as above. > > 2) You almost certainly don't need to find that file. As mentioned above, > if it's not in your PATH setting, then something is broken. This is pretty > rare. If you need to execute a command--from a terminal or from an "open > with" dialogue, just type the command (in the appropriate dialogue box, as > needed). If you want to open a PDF, and the GUI hasn't figured out how to > do that, type "acroread", "evince", or whatever you have installed into the > box. > > 3) +1 about Windows having an absurdly hard-to-use filesystem, > where finding binaries/executables is concerned. Once you learn Linux, > you'll bless its build-in filesystem, and probably find little/no need to > mess with it. For that matter, +1 to all the stuff about /bin, /sbin, > /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/sbin, /opt, etc. having useful, specific > purposes. Sure, it bugs me when some program insists on installing > someplace I don't think makes sense. Usually it'll let me change it upon > install, if it's from a script, but if not, I can still put it into the > PATH if it's not already there, and after that it doesn't matter! So long > as the uninstall functionality works for a given program (which it REALLY, > REALLY should...), and the executable structure of the program is remotely > sensible (looking at you, OpenOffice, Mozilla, etc.), it's all gravy, so > far as I'm concerned. Proprietary programs are the more problematic > culprits, anyway, and there's not much a distribution can do about them, so > far as I'm aware. > > 4) I've never liked Fedora, anyway. :-p > > > I'm sure the real gurus here know a lot more about the specifics than I > do, so have at it! > > --Dane > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Colin Watson wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 02:40:31AM +0800, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: >> > We could even enhance which to look in obvious places off the path >> (perhaps >> > locatedb?) and print the output on stderr if we really wanted to. >> >> Please don't - 'which' is used in scripts and needs to preserve its >> current behaviour. Any extra behaviour should be added to a >> different/new program. >> >> -- >> Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] >> >> -- >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list >> Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com >> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss >> > > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu should move all binaries to /usr/bin/
My 2 cents. Let other distros do this first. Wait 5 years to allow problems to be sorted out. Then discuss again. -- A bug magnet El Dec 5, 2011, a las 12:15, Matt Alexander escribió: > Sure, using find or which, etc., can be used to locate a particular app, but > that's not really the point. Why not simplify things and put all binaries > under /usr/bin? Then you don't have to teach users about silly distinctions > like "Oh, see, if it's an app that's meant to be used by a System > Adminstrator, then it goes into /usr/sbin". Who cares? Just put everything > in /usr/bin to keep things simple. > > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Dane Mutters wrote: > I don't know if the original poster has since learned this, but I think it's > worth noting several things, in case the person coming over from Windows > hasn't figured it out. (If this is a non-issue, please disregard this email.) > > 1) Linux/Unix executables don't have a .exe extension. Typically, they don't > have any extension at all, and can conceivably have every extension > imaginable (including common ones like .sh for scripts). If you're looking > for an executable, forget looking for its extension. Try using the "find" > command to look for executable files, or if you know the one you want, > already, use the "which" command, as above. > > 2) You almost certainly don't need to find that file. As mentioned above, if > it's not in your PATH setting, then something is broken. This is pretty > rare. If you need to execute a command--from a terminal or from an "open > with" dialogue, just type the command (in the appropriate dialogue box, as > needed). If you want to open a PDF, and the GUI hasn't figured out how to do > that, type "acroread", "evince", or whatever you have installed into the box. > > 3) +1 about Windows having an absurdly hard-to-use filesystem, where > finding binaries/executables is concerned. Once you learn Linux, you'll > bless its build-in filesystem, and probably find little/no need to mess with > it. For that matter, +1 to all the stuff about /bin, /sbin, /usr/local/bin, > /usr/local/sbin, /opt, etc. having useful, specific purposes. Sure, it bugs > me when some program insists on installing someplace I don't think makes > sense. Usually it'll let me change it upon install, if it's from a script, > but if not, I can still put it into the PATH if it's not already there, and > after that it doesn't matter! So long as the uninstall functionality works > for a given program (which it REALLY, REALLY should...), and the executable > structure of the program is remotely sensible (looking at you, OpenOffice, > Mozilla, etc.), it's all gravy, so far as I'm concerned. Proprietary > programs are the more problematic culprits, anyway, and there's not much a > distribution can do about them, so far as I'm aware. > > 4) I've never liked Fedora, anyway. :-p > > > I'm sure the real gurus here know a lot more about the specifics than I do, > so have at it! > > --Dane > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 02:40:31AM +0800, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: > > We could even enhance which to look in obvious places off the path (perhaps > > locatedb?) and print the output on stderr if we really wanted to. > > Please don't - 'which' is used in scripts and needs to preserve its > current behaviour. Any extra behaviour should be added to a > different/new program. > > -- > Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu should move all binaries to /usr/bin/
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 4:02 AM, nick rundy wrote: > There are several situations where I need to find an executable. One that > comes immediately to mind is when I need to specify what program to use to > open an online stream and the program I want is not appearing in an offered I find it quite annoying that Firefox doesn't automatically find the file for me. I type in the executable name just like I do in bash, but Firefox doesn't even search the path. In this case, needing to know where the executable is seems like a bug. -- John C. McCabe-Dansted -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu should move all binaries to /usr/bin/
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 02:40:31AM +0800, John McCabe-Dansted wrote: >> We could even enhance which to look in obvious places off the path (perhaps >> locatedb?) and print the output on stderr if we really wanted to. > > Please don't - 'which' is used in scripts and needs to preserve its > current behaviour. Any extra behaviour should be added to a > different/new program. There are ways to detect script vs interactive shell, but nobody seems to want this feature enough to justify adding it to which anyway, so it is a bit of a moot point. -- John C. McCabe-Dansted -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu should move all binaries to /usr/bin/
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 09:15:11AM -0800, Matt Alexander wrote: > Sure, using find or which, etc., can be used to locate a particular app, > but that's not really the point. Why not simplify things and put all > binaries under /usr/bin? Then you don't have to teach users about silly > distinctions like "Oh, see, if it's an app that's meant to be used by a > System Adminstrator, then it goes into /usr/sbin". Who cares? Just put > everything in /usr/bin to keep things simple. There are programs that an admin doesn't want users to run. Don't top post. ...snip.. -- Bob Holtzman If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer. Key ID: 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
