Hardy+1 Idea: GoboLinux Filesystem Hierarchy?
Hardy, being a LTS release, will have an emphasis on stability and polish; but I was thinking for Hardy+1 that, like replacing SysVInit in Edgy with Upstart, some new ideas to kick around might be nice. So a suggetion: what about the GoboLinux filesystem hierarchy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobolinux http://www.gobolinux.org/?page=at_a_glance It claims to be modular, logical, and transparently retain[s] compatibility with the Unix legacy, without any rocket science to this ;) Sounds like fun; what say you? CK -- 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: Hardy+1 Idea: GoboLinux Filesystem Hierarchy?
Hi Conrad, Am Wed, 9 Jan 2008 03:12:26 -0600 schrieb Conrad Knauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hardy, being a LTS release, will have an emphasis on stability and polish; but I was thinking for Hardy+1 that, like replacing SysVInit in Edgy with Upstart, some new ideas to kick around might be nice. So a suggetion: what about the GoboLinux filesystem hierarchy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobolinux http://www.gobolinux.org/?page=at_a_glance It claims to be modular, logical, and transparently retain[s] compatibility with the Unix legacy, without any rocket science to this ;) Sounds like fun; what say you? Crap...sorry...but when linux (or in this case Ubuntu as Linux Distro) diverts a lot from the unix standard, most people will fail to work on real Unix systems like solaris, aix, tru64 or other Unix flavours. Yeah, Linux != Unix, but it's a Unix a like, and we should follow some unix rules at least. I read about this FS hirarchy but it has IMHO some flaws and it will give us a lot more upstream divergence (upstream in this case == debian) Regards, \sh -- 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: Hardy+1 Idea: GoboLinux Filesystem Hierarchy?
Hi What would improve by using Gobolinux filesystem hierarchy? Ok, it is really much more clear than the usual hierarchy (by replacing /etc, /usr, and others with some meaningful names through symlinks). Since it uses symlinks, the legacy filesystem hierarchy is still there, no compatibility issues then. On the other hand, if someone already uses Linux, he probably got used with the normal filesystem hierarchy. If it is someone's first time, wouldn't it be confused to have a filesystem in a way and every Forum, HOWTO and other help docs over the net telling how to do things with another filesystem hierarchy? I've already used Gobolinux. For me, Ubuntu doesn't need to change at this point. See ya. Guilherme Augusto 2008/1/9, Conrad Knauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hardy, being a LTS release, will have an emphasis on stability and polish; but I was thinking for Hardy+1 that, like replacing SysVInit in Edgy with Upstart, some new ideas to kick around might be nice. So a suggetion: what about the GoboLinux filesystem hierarchy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobolinux http://www.gobolinux.org/?page=at_a_glance It claims to be modular, logical, and transparently retain[s] compatibility with the Unix legacy, without any rocket science to this ;) Sounds like fun; what say you? CK -- 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 -- Quem já passou por esta vida e não viveu Pode ser mais, mas sabe menos do que eu Porque a vida só se dá pra quem se deu Pra quem amou, pra quem chorou, pra quem sofreu Quem nunca curtiu uma paixão Nunca vai ter nada, não Não há mal pior do que a descrença Mesmo o amor que não compensa É melhor que a solidão Abre os teus braços, meu irmão, deixa cair Pra que somar se a gente pode dividir? Eu francamente já não quero nem saber De quem não vai porque tem medo de sofrer Ai de quem não rasga o coração Esse não vai ter perdão Vinícius/Toquinho - Como dizia o poeta -- 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: Hardy+1 Idea: GoboLinux Filesystem Hierarchy?
what i think is very useful about the gobo system is that it trivially handles multiple versions of a package. /Programs/Firefox/2.0 /Programs/Firefox/3.0 with debian systems there are sometimes packages with multiple versions, eg apache2, but i think it is extra work for the packagers, so it does not happen often Maybe this would solve problems with backports breaking other installed software. Firefox does not get backported because so many packages are built on it. But if it was trivial to have several firefox versions then everything is easier. Sam -- 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: Hardy+1 Idea: GoboLinux Filesystem Hierarchy?
There are two versions of Firefox in Gutsy, and nothing broke from it. This just reminds me of the FSH on this darned Mac I'm stuck using. I don't like it. It makes paths longer and more annoying to type (remember, our fs is case-sensitive). On Jan 9, 2008 7:46 AM, Sam Tygier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what i think is very useful about the gobo system is that it trivially handles multiple versions of a package. /Programs/Firefox/2.0 /Programs/Firefox/3.0 with debian systems there are sometimes packages with multiple versions, eg apache2, but i think it is extra work for the packagers, so it does not happen often Maybe this would solve problems with backports breaking other installed software. Firefox does not get backported because so many packages are built on it. But if it was trivial to have several firefox versions then everything is easier. Sam -- 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 -- Mackenzie Morgan Linux User #432169 ACM Member #3445683 http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com -my blog of Ubuntu stuff apt-get moo -- 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: Hardy+1 Idea: GoboLinux Filesystem Hierarchy?
Mackenzie Morgan wrote: There are two versions of Firefox in Gutsy, and nothing broke from it. Yes, but i think it takes the packagers some effort to modify the firefox3 package to not interfere with the older version. As far as apt is concerned they are separate programs in separate packages. This just reminds me of the FSH on this darned Mac I'm stuck using. I don't like it. It makes paths longer and more annoying to type (remember, our fs is case-sensitive). as long as $PATH is set in a clever way you don't need to type the full path for an executable. I don't know how gobo handle this, but I assume they do. sam tygier -- 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: Hardy+1 Idea: GoboLinux Filesystem Hierarchy?
On 09/01/2008, Sam Tygier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mackenzie Morgan wrote: There are two versions of Firefox in Gutsy, and nothing broke from it. Yes, but i think it takes the packagers some effort to modify the firefox3 package to not interfere with the older version. As far as apt is concerned they are separate programs in separate packages. This just reminds me of the FSH on this darned Mac I'm stuck using. I don't like it. It makes paths longer and more annoying to type (remember, our fs is case-sensitive). as long as $PATH is set in a clever way you don't need to type the full path for an executable. I don't know how gobo handle this, but I assume they do. I got the impression that they would symlink everything to it's usual place, so paths are not an issue (except for multi-version packages). One thing that this scheme does break is the ability to mount /usr read-only. Or rather it breaks the ability to put the contents of /usr/bin, /usr/lib ,...on a read-only partition and leaving /etc, /var, ... read-write. Not many people actually do it but it's one of the goals of the FHS. You could get around that by having yet another layer of symlinks so that Xorg settings appear to be in /Programs/Xorg-Server/Settings/X11/xorg.conf but are really on something like /Variable/etc/Xorg-Server/X11/xorg.conf But that's even less standard... F sam tygier -- 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: Hardy+1 Idea: GoboLinux Filesystem Hierarchy?
On Jan 9, 2008 5:15 AM, Guilherme Augusto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.gobolinux.org/?page=at_a_glance What would improve by using Gobolinux filesystem hierarchy? A little over a year ago SABDFL blogged on http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/66 --- A long, long time ago, packaging was an exciting idea. [...] Today, these differences are just a hindrance. The fact that there are so many divergent packaging systems in the free software world (and I include the various *bsd's) is a waste of time and energy. [...] I'd like to see us define distribution-neutral packaging that suits both the source-heads and the distro-heads. --- The GLFH sounds like a good way to create a standard package format that can be easily layered over any *nix OS... On the other hand, if someone already uses Linux, he probably got used with the normal filesystem hierarchy. If it is someone's first time, wouldn't it be confused to have a filesystem in a way and every Forum, HOWTO and other help docs over the net telling how to do things with another filesystem hierarchy? the Unix paths [...] are actually there, but they are concealed from view using the GoboHide kernel extension. This is for aesthetic purposes only and purely optional IOW, the old way of doing things should still work. Also, just as an aside, I find that if I need Ubuntu help, searching for '[my problem] Linux' isn't nearly as helpful as '[my problem] Ubuntu'. People will adapt, just as someone moving from KDE to Gnome will adapt to the different apps and controls. I don't think the GLFH should be rejected (just) because its different; there would never be any progress if we do that ;) CK -- 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: Hardy+1 Idea: GoboLinux Filesystem Hierarchy?
On Jan 10, 2008 3:42 AM, Conrad Knauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 5:15 AM, Guilherme Augusto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.gobolinux.org/?page=at_a_glance What would improve by using Gobolinux filesystem hierarchy? A little over a year ago SABDFL blogged on http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/66 --- A long, long time ago, packaging was an exciting idea. [...] Today, these differences are just a hindrance. The fact that there are so many divergent packaging systems in the free software world (and I include the various *bsd's) is a waste of time and energy. [...] I'd like to see us define distribution-neutral packaging that suits both the source-heads and the distro-heads. --- The GLFH sounds like a good way to create a standard package format that can be easily layered over any *nix OS... On the other hand, if someone already uses Linux, he probably got used with the normal filesystem hierarchy. If it is someone's first time, wouldn't it be confused to have a filesystem in a way and every Forum, HOWTO and other help docs over the net telling how to do things with another filesystem hierarchy? the Unix paths [...] are actually there, but they are concealed from view using the GoboHide kernel extension. This is for aesthetic purposes only and purely optional IOW, the old way of doing things should still work. If you look at the Mac filesystem, you'll see some of the familiar *unix* paths, but you won't see them in Finder. While GoboHide provides a hidden filesystem on both file managers and shells, it's not practical to impliment than just using .hidden files for Nautilus. The same effect can be attainable, without loading any kernel extensions. I think whoever needs a hidden filesystems are the Nautilus, Dolphin, etc. users. [see http://joelbryanonsoftware.blogspot.com/2007/03/file-system-preferences.html] -- 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
