On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 02:02 +0900, Arwyn Hainsworth wrote: > On 14/01/07, Jonathon Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ubuntu developers: > > > > Why is the specification mentioned in [ > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/system-directory-approach > > ] and [ > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/userfriendly-filesystem-structure > > ] "oft-rejected"? Granted, these proposals are not very thought-out or > > defined, but it seems like the kind of user-centric design decision that is > > Ubuntu's foundation. I understand the benefits of the Filesystem Hierarchy > > Standard (such as minimal-mount booting and interoperability through > > standards-compliance) but these seem more like barriers-to-entry for an > > otherwise ideal system: problems to be solved, not reasons to stay > > entrenched. > > > > I think back to my gradual acceptance of OS-X. A staunch Windows user, I was > > completely taken aback by the lack of "Add/Remove Programs," let alone > > "C:\". > > > > As I became more familiar with Linux, I began asking myself "what is > > '/etc'?" or "if I make a webpage, where do I put the .html files?" or "what > > is the difference between '/bin', '/usr/bin', and 'usr/local/bin'?" (It took > > me days to figure out what "usr" even meant!) > > > > I looked up the FHS on Wikipedia (and the subsequent links) and finally > > understood the point of it all. Still, when I later used a Mac (as I > > sporadically do) I realized that there was something more: "/Applications" > > (et. all.) > > > > There's another side to this issue: atomic packages. I think back to my > > Windows days: dll hell... untraceable files installed everywhere... the > > registry... an unmanageable melting pot of binaries that could only be > > cleaned out by periodically re-installing the operating system from scratch. > > > > I don't have this same problem on Ubuntu, but it's not because the problem > > doesn't exist. In fact, I think the fileystem hierarchy in Ubuntu is way > > worse from this angle. A program gets installed in /usr/bin, /usr/lib, /etc, > > and who knows where else. It's manageable because there is a system (apt) > > that keeps track of it all for you, but that makes package-management a > > monolithic, cathedral task that is very isv-unfriendly. > > > > I believe that the adoption of the ideals presented by "GoboLinux" [ > > http://www.gobolinux.org/ ] are a necessary component of the evolution of a > > consumer-level desktop os (as opposed to an enterprise-level server os). > > > > Granted, this seems to be a consistently-rejected idea, and there must be a > > reason for it. Still, in my reading, I have found no document explaining, > > from the Ubuntu perspective, why this "oft-rejected specification" is, in > > fact, oft-rejected. > > > > Comments are greatly appreciated. > > > > Two reasons: > 1) Prohibitive cost. It would require large changes to the Debian > packages and a lot of extra testing to implement. > 2) No real benefits. The only plus this would provide is a > Non-educated-user-understandable file system. The atomicity of > applications is an illusion that will quickly disappear once you > delete a dependency. > > While a non-educated-user understandable file system would be nice, it > is a problem that can wait. User-installable packages would be higher > on my wish-list. > Mind you, there is a way to kill two bird with one stone: having file > locations determined by meta-data as opposed to having them hard-wired > into a tar-ball. This approach also has it's share of problems, > including a high development cost, but at least it has more benefits > than changing the FHS. > > Arwyn. (short comment on non-educated users) I think theme might be a need to ask what an uneducated user is. Someone who realy is uneducated couldnt care less, since he or she should never traverse anything other than ~ anyway; besides /media that is, but that sort of user wouldnt ever know CDROMs mounted outside ~, or even understand the concepts of 'mounting' or 'home' in the first place. (back on topic) The problem is only for above average windows users, and even then, I wonder if the problem isnt more about unlearning and relearning than one system being better than the other. (Mind you, i prefer the Unix filesystem layout to the throw-stuff-into-the-air-and-let-it-fall-as-it-may approach of Windows.)
Package managers makes this more or less a nonissue from the users perspective anyway, as has already been said. Using a packagemanager to manage- and browse your installed applications (much like the Windows Add/Remove panel, btw) instead of a filemanager is realy just using diffrent tools for doing the same thing, with packagemanagers being more capable and powerfull than anything you can do by hand with a filemanager. I think the reason this isnt worked is that there is no pressing need for such a change. /Björn Ottervik -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
