On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 04:33:00 (-0500), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-03-11 at 23:05, David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 11 Mar 2021 at 16:02:55 (-0400), Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm not familiar with how Windows assigns drive letters,
>
[ … ]
> For removable disks (e.g. USB drives),
On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 12:03:37 (-0400), Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> 2021-03-12 0:05 GMT-04:00, David Wright :
> > You'd have to sort out the delimiter ":", and the semantics of
> > a filename F1:something/something_else. (I take it you're familiar
> > with how the interpretation of F:a\b is
2021-03-12 0:05 GMT-04:00, David Wright :
> On Thu 11 Mar 2021 at 16:02:55 (-0400), Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
>> Think of E: and F:
>> as sdc1 and sdd1, with direct access to those E: and F:.
>
> Take care how you express this. sdc1 and sdd1 *do* give you direct
> access to devices, but it's raw,
On Jo, 11 mar 21, 16:02:55, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
>
> Thanks for your proposition, I didn't understand the usefulness of a
> unified hierarchy
> until you put that example.
>
> Well, you still have to mount it, don't you? We don't have to delete
> the mount "feature"
> nor the unified
On 2021-03-11 at 23:05, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 11 Mar 2021 at 16:02:55 (-0400), Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> I'm not familiar with how Windows assigns drive letters,
Basically, there's an internal device ID list (hexadecimal GUIDs, if I'm
not mistaken), and a mapping in the Registry.
On Thu 11 Mar 2021 at 16:02:55 (-0400), Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> El jue, 11 mar 2021 a las 14:51, David Wright escribió:
> > Take the case where partition E: contains the users' home
> > directories for users foo and bar. Foo's video collection
> > in E:/foo/Videos/ eventually grows so large
El jue, 11 mar 2021 a las 14:51, David Wright
() escribió:
> Take the case where partition E: contains the users' home
> directories for users foo and bar. Foo's video collection
> in E:/foo/Videos/ eventually grows so large that it has to
> be hived off onto a separate device, F: is assigned to
On Wed 10 Mar 2021 at 15:35:07 (-0400), Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> > It is more than looks. In Unix filesystems disks/volumes/partitions are
> > "mounted" into the main file system at some arbitrary "mount point" and
> > thus the filesystem encompasses all mounted devices. With DOS, all
> >
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:35:44PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> Thanks. So really the complaint is just that dpkg -S operates on the
> paths of files as packaged, whereas type -p yields canonical paths,
> I assume.
It'll search through the directories in PATH, in order, and use the
first one that
On Thu 11 Mar 2021 at 16:09:40 (+1100), David wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 14:52, David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 10 Mar 2021 at 17:45:48 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> > > dpkg -S =foo
>
> > Sorry, but we're not all familiar with the construct "=foo"
> > as interpreted by zsh, oops,
> And oh, please: drop those whitespaces off file and directory names. This
> makes teaching shell scripting to newbies a really #@%*&$¡~ chore. Unless
> you want newbies to not learn scripting [1].
On the flip side, it teaches good practices, compared to the all too
common scripts using
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 07:48:14AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:24:25AM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > And oh, please: drop those whitespaces off file and directory names. This
> > makes teaching shell scripting to newbies a really #@%*&$¡~ chore. Unless
> > you
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:24:25AM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> And oh, please: drop those whitespaces off file and directory names. This
> makes teaching shell scripting to newbies a really #@%*&$¡~ chore. Unless
> you want newbies to not learn scripting [1].
>
> Cheers
>
> [1] The generic
> If that type of mark is possible in your environment, then no, this
> shouldn't break anything.
>
> However, as far as I'm aware, there is no non-file-manager-specific
> "hidden" attribute for an *nix filesystem. The traditional way to make
> most *nix programs treat a file as hidden is to
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> > > I like to know at hand what file is on which disk.
> >
> > That used to work for A: vs C: back in the days of floppys, but what
> > part of "E:" tells you which disk it is? At best you get to assume that
> > E: and D: are different disks, but the names don't tell
On 2021-03-10 at 21:22, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
>> I don't see why that would come up in this case.
>>
>> In the model I described, the original paths which you found
>> confusing are all still there, and anything which wants to find
>> things under them can continue to use them.
>>
>> All
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> To whomever tries that approach, my advice would be to have a long look
> at all the botches common destop environments managed to do while trying
> to internationalise directories beneath a user's home.
>
> I mean: those things like "Desktop", which, if you do a
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:03:00PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
[...]
> Well, if all you want is to be able to have more "newbie-friendly"
> descriptive names of the directories, it might be possible to achieve
> something like that by the simple addition of a collection of symlinks;
> just
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:01:29PM -0400, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> > I think all these shortened names derive from a time when computing
> > resources were limited. If you're using an 80x25 terminal over at 50
> > bits per second to a time-shared mainframe, it's more comfortable to
> > type
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:35:58PM -0400, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> > Here's one source of breakage I encountered a few times because of this
[good example of collateral damage from usrmerge]
> Yes, before every possible bug derived from that change is corrected,
> you could use some sort
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> I think too that it could be better than both Debian and Windows are
> today. In Windows, if you look under C:\Windows\System32\ it becomes
> scary.
Same when you open the hood of your car, no?
Not to mention aircraft engine ... so to put it short - in life a lot of
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 14:52, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 10 Mar 2021 at 17:45:48 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > dpkg -S =foo
> Sorry, but we're not all familiar with the construct "=foo"
> as interpreted by zsh, oops, Zsh. Can you elaborate on what
> dpkg itself is being fed by this
On Wed 10 Mar 2021 at 17:45:48 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I just read this:
> > https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/
> > It seems as a good idea that merge of /usr.
> > I was wondering what would happen if some program used filesystem paths
> > as its
> I don't see why that would come up in this case.
>
> In the model I described, the original paths which you found confusing
> are all still there, and anything which wants to find things under them
> can continue to use them.
>
> All this model does is give those paths an additional name each,
> In one of the Apple frameworks they have a class called
> "INGetAvailableRestaurantReservationBookingDefaultsIntentResponse"
Well, I have to say that it is too much even for modern PCs.
There should be a limit.
>
>
> The ergonomics and aesthetics of the command line are not always reflected
> in programming languages, because the environments are not the same.
> Commands needed to be typed on a teletype console in the middle of the
> night to fix problems. Programs could be developed at leisure, with
>
On 2021-03-10 at 19:31, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> Written by The Wanderer
>
>> Well, if all you want is to be able to have more "newbie-friendly"
>> descriptive names of the directories, it might be possible to
>> achieve something like that by the simple addition of a collection
>> of
Weaver wrote:
There is nothing `unfriendly' concerning the filesystem heirarchy.
What negative experiences have you had with it, so far, that inclines
you to this point of view?
I too find the old-fashioned Unix common folder names and filesystem organization to
be unfriendly, inconvenient,
> As such, the greater concerns with a programming language are making it
> easy to express your algorithm, and easy to understand existing code.
> Conciseness gives a much smaller benefit, and is not prized nearly as
> highly, except among bored kids.
Yes, every approach has its pros and cons:
Written by The Wanderer
> Well, if all you want is to be able to have more "newbie-friendly"
> descriptive names of the directories, it might be possible to achieve
> something like that by the simple addition of a collection of symlinks;
> just symlink e.g. "/Configuration" to '/etc', '/Programs'
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 02:56:16AM +0300, IL Ka wrote:
> They also had small CRTs and slow dot matrix printers.
>
> Every single letter matters: open() has "O_CREAT" flag, not o_create.
But:
Ken Thompson was once asked what he would do differently if he were
redesigning the UNIX system. His
On 2021-03-10 at 16:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 10 mar 21, 15:26:41, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
>> Thanks for your encouragement. I hope someday it becomes real, and
>> only with the installation of one meta-package.
>
> Based on Debian's experience with usr-merge I'm guessing it's
>
>
> [ I think even back in the early days of time-sharing, connections were
> faster than 50bit/s. ]
>
[quote]
Joy explained that the terse, single character commands and the ability to
type ahead of the display were a result of the slow 300 baud modem he used
when developing the software
> The Unix-Haters Handbook has the following theory:
>
> ,
> | Those of us who used early 70s I/O devices suspect the degeneracy stems
> | from the speed, reliability, and, most importantly, the keyboard of the
> | ASR-33 Teletype, the common input/output device in those days. Unlike
> |
> Here's one source of breakage I encountered a few times because of this
> /usr merge (which I generally welcome, BTW):
>
> dpkg -S =foo
>
> this (using the Zsh shell) should give me the name of the Debian package
> which provides the command `foo`. It works well for most commands, but
> it
> > I like to know at hand what file is on which disk.
>
> That used to work for A: vs C: back in the days of floppys, but what
> part of "E:" tells you which disk it is? At best you get to assume that
> E: and D: are different disks, but the names don't tell you which is
which.
>
> > Even
>> [ I think even back in the early days of time-sharing, connections were
>>faster than 50bit/s. ]
> Common teletype Baud rates were 45.5 and 110. 45.5 was used primarily for
> radio transmission and 110 for landline - both using a modem.
110bit/s is indeed the number I remember as "the
> PS: And of course, if you want something better you may want to
> challenge some of the assumptions as well, such as the fact that it
> needs to be a hierarchy.
Thanks, I did not realized that possibility. There are tags too made to
identify files
or directories in a non-hierarchical manner.
> I just read this:
> https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/
> It seems as a good idea that merge of /usr.
> I was wondering what would happen if some program used filesystem paths
> as its input data for some processing task. He he, yes, changing status quo
> is
On 2021-03-10 17:13 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> I think all these shortened names derive from a time when computing
>> resources were limited. If you're using an 80x25 terminal over at 50
>> bits per second to a time-shared mainframe, it's more comfortable to
>> type "/usr" than it is to type
On 11/3/21 6:13 am, Stefan Monnier wrote:
[ I think even back in the early days of time-sharing, connections were
faster than 50bit/s. ]
Common teletype Baud rates were 45.5 and 110. 45.5 was used primarily
for radio transmission and 110 for landline - both using a modem.
When I
> I like to know at hand what file is on which disk.
That used to work for A: vs C: back in the days of floppys, but what
part of "E:" tells you which disk it is? At best you get to assume that
E: and D: are different disks, but the names don't tell you which is which.
> Even though, it would
> While I was making my research before installing Debian
> I saw that the filesystem hierarchy is not so friendly
> (I'm new to GNU/Linux operating systems).
"Not friendly" indicates that you see a problem with it, but doesn't
really say what problem it was and even less how to fix it.
I
> I think all these shortened names derive from a time when computing
> resources were limited. If you're using an 80x25 terminal over at 50
> bits per second to a time-shared mainframe, it's more comfortable to
> type "/usr" than it is to type "/Programs". Easier to type "cp" than to
> type
> Joe wrote:
> > There was a time when 'software' and 'applications' were two different
> > and distinct things, when applications were user programs and software
> > was the set of programs that made the computer work, today called system
> > software. A computer as delivered contained both
Joe wrote:
> There was a time when 'software' and 'applications' were two different
> and distinct things, when applications were user programs and software
> was the set of programs that made the computer work, today called system
> software. A computer as delivered contained both hardware and
On Mi, 10 mar 21, 15:26:41, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> > You're not only allowed to think that, you're allowed to get
> > people together and do it.
> >
> > All the code in Debian proper has free licenses, and you're
> > welcome to create a Debian derivation that conforms to your idea
> > of
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:19:42 -0400
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> > if you want to see an example of what it takes to
> > make changes to this sort of layout google "Debian
> > merged /usr" and read those threads. :)
>
> I just read this:
>
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> > if you want to see an example of what it takes to
> > make changes to this sort of layout google "Debian
> > merged /usr" and read those threads. :)
>
> I just read this:
> https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/
> It seems as a
> if you want to see an example of what it takes to
> make changes to this sort of layout google "Debian
> merged /usr" and read those threads. :)
I just read this:
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/
It seems as a good idea that merge of /usr.
I was
> It is more than looks. In Unix filesystems disks/volumes/partitions are
> "mounted" into the main file system at some arbitrary "mount point" and
> thus the filesystem encompasses all mounted devices. With DOS, all
> lettered disks are independent, though resources can be referenced
> across
> You're not only allowed to think that, you're allowed to get
> people together and do it.
>
> All the code in Debian proper has free licenses, and you're
> welcome to create a Debian derivation that conforms to your idea
> of what is proper.
>
> It's going to be a lot of work, though. You should
* On 2021 10 Mar 12:02 -0600, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> > I think all these shortened names derive from a time when computing
> > resources were limited. If you're using an 80x25 terminal over at 50
> > bits per second to a time-shared mainframe, it's more comfortable to
> > type "/usr" than it
Le 10/03/2021 à 04:08, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z a écrit :
>
> Hello.
>
> While I was making my research before installing Debian
> I saw that the filesystem hierarchy is not so friendly
> (I'm new to GNU/Linux operating systems).
> I saw there was a distribution called GoboLinux which
> addressed that
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> But why do we have to use a system designed for such old computers
> when the now old computers are much more capable than that.
> I think it needs a redesign.
You're not only allowed to think that, you're allowed to get
people together and do it.
All the code in
> Think of it as a vocabulary shift when moving from one section of the
country to another. I felt I had to learn a new language when moving from
very urban New York to rural Missouri. You get used to it ;}
Yes, it is my only option for now.
Well, thank you all for your help. Have a good day
> As above, there's no inherent reason this naming convention *couldn't*
> be changed, but doing so would be a vast and invasive thing, which would
> probably break at least a few things that one might not notice. Doing it
> at all would basically require you to design the entire distribution
>
> I think all these shortened names derive from a time when computing
> resources were limited. If you're using an 80x25 terminal over at 50
> bits per second to a time-shared mainframe, it's more comfortable to
> type "/usr" than it is to type "/Programs". Easier to type "cp" than to
> type
On 03/10/2021 09:01 AM, songbird wrote:
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
...
Well, yes, as I said, my problem is quite trivial.
I was just thinking it could be a little improvement.
understand the complexity involved of managing 51,000
packages already established procedures and tools set up
to
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
...
> Well, yes, as I said, my problem is quite trivial.
> I was just thinking it could be a little improvement.
understand the complexity involved of managing 51,000
packages already established procedures and tools set up
to work with things as they currently are.
* On 2021 10 Mar 07:20 -0600, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> > i wouldn't bother. really it is just a huge waste of time
> > for no real gain.
> >
> > the problem is that you are new to linux/unix type system
> > and so you don't understand the history or layout as it is.
> >
> > learn what
>
>
> but it could have been "Shared" or "Resources".
> You see what I mean?
>
>
> A bit of history:
https://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem-Hierarchy/html/usr.html
Initial idea was to put everything that is essential for the system to boot
to the root filesystem (/bin, /sbin etc).
While user
On 03/10/2021 07:07 AM, songbird wrote:
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
...
While I was making my research before installing Debian
I saw that the filesystem hierarchy is not so friendly
(I'm new to GNU/Linux operating systems).
I saw there was a distribution called GoboLinux which
addressed that
On 2021-03-10 at 08:09, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> It's what I'm trying to say, it looks like something, because someday
> ago it was, but it is something else.
>
> With whole respect to UNIX, do we really need backward compatibility
> with it, or something alike?
Absolutely need? No.
Does
> i wouldn't bother. really it is just a huge waste of time
> for no real gain.
>
> the problem is that you are new to linux/unix type system
> and so you don't understand the history or layout as it is.
>
> learn what is there as it is. you rarely need to work
> outside /home/ for most
Hi,
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> > By the way, what does "usr" mean?
The Wanderer wrote:
> I can't completely rule out a derivation from "user", but I don't think
> that's usually considered likely.
My german translation of S.R. Bourne's The Unix Syistem of 1983 states:
"Der Katalog /usr
Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
...
> While I was making my research before installing Debian
> I saw that the filesystem hierarchy is not so friendly
> (I'm new to GNU/Linux operating systems).
> I saw there was a distribution called GoboLinux which
> addressed that inconvenience, but according to a
> Wikipedia [1] leans towards the derivation from "user":
>
> usr The "user file system": originally the directory holding
> user home directories,[15] but already by the Third Edition
> of Research Unix, ca. 1973, reused to split the operating
> system's programs over
> I've traditionally understood it to stand for "UNIX Shared Resources",
> but V.E.R.A. (the Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms) doesn't list that
> as a definition; the nearest definition it does have which looks like it
> might be related is "User Service Routines".
So it is an acronym then.
On 10/03/2021 12:52, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:45:16AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>> On 2021-03-10 at 07:27, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, what does "usr" mean? I thought it was "user" untill I
>>> took a look inside. Just asking.
>> I've traditionally
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:45:16AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-03-10 at 07:27, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
>
> > By the way, what does "usr" mean? I thought it was "user" untill I
> > took a look inside. Just asking.
>
> I've traditionally understood it to stand for "UNIX Shared
On 2021-03-10 at 07:27, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> By the way, what does "usr" mean? I thought it was "user" untill I
> took a look inside. Just asking.
I've traditionally understood it to stand for "UNIX Shared Resources",
but V.E.R.A. (the Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms) doesn't list
On 03/09/2021 23:54, "Weaver" wrote:
> What negative experiences have you had with it, so far, that inclines
> you to this point of view?
On 03/10/2021 05:08, "Darac Marjal" wrote:
> How is the filesystem "unfriendly"? It's a filing system. It's purpose
> is to make it easier to find files.
>
On 10/03/2021 03:08, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> While I was making my research before installing Debian
> I saw that the filesystem hierarchy is not so friendly
> (I'm new to GNU/Linux operating systems).
>
How is the filesystem "unfriendly"? It's a filing system. It's purpose
is
On 10-03-2021 13:08, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> Hello.
>
> While I was making my research before installing Debian
> I saw that the filesystem hierarchy is not so friendly
> (I'm new to GNU/Linux operating systems).
Yes, you are.
There is nothing `unfriendly' concerning the filesystem
Hello.
While I was making my research before installing Debian
I saw that the filesystem hierarchy is not so friendly
(I'm new to GNU/Linux operating systems).
I saw there was a distribution called GoboLinux which
addressed that inconvenience, but according to a DistroWatch review,
it is not
76 matches
Mail list logo
