simpler file layout

Using applications, configuring, problems
Message
Author
User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

#41 Post by Flash »

At the very least, every Linux should include in a copy of the Linux Filesystem Heirarchy, or a link to it, so a beginner could learn without having to wade through a lot of contentious and ultimately unhelpful discussion. :lol:

User avatar
Gn2
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon 16 Oct 2006, 05:33
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

#42 Post by Gn2 »

There is documented "standards" vs understanding any

I was once asked by a close friend -"What would happen if I" -
In reference to altering the mechanical fuel pump settings without checking turbo boost

Events > Time lag, (over fueled) then turbo catches up, over Revs.- Cooks itself & impeller breaks
Sending pieces through cylinders.

I said - "First off - you will destroy the engine"
"But what is certain to happen - You would be fired - from consequences of not adhering to standards
set by Mfg to ensure safe operation & engine life"

He did not need to read the full OEM engine Specs - just use common sense before trying to deviate :
Esp without fully understanding or ignoring the possible results !

"If it were your own "engine" (do as you please) = "As a friend I can only warn & tell it the way it is."

He was a good HD Mech, a proficient "bench" gear man ( transmissions, differentials)
I would not assign him to tune engine$ nor trouble $hoot!

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#43 Post by sunburnt »

To imbellish on Amish's Linux file system info...

The dir. /usr is for installed apps., Xwin included (yes it's an external app.).
Everything else in the root dir. / is whats needed for Linux to boot to the console.
Although in reality not absolutely everything that's in / is needed for booting.
But for a lean system the / SHOULD only have boot files & utilities for the console.
The exception would be /etc, which has config. files for just about everything.
But having all of them in one place is the most rational part of the dir. structure.

The difference between Win. & Linux as Gobo Linux says is; Win. organizes with dirs.
Linux needs to keep lists of where everything goes, if it's to be tracked.
Puppy keeps track of app. installs this way, making it possable to uninstall.
But then in Linux you can't just look at the dirs. to see what's there... like Win.
And even Win. scatters install files all over hells half acre, so how is it better?

The true test is feasability, how well it works, Win. trashes itself from the word go.
Basically Win. is like our polititions in Washington D.C., it's self corrupting.
Wins. file formats are propriatary & suck universally, ext2 & ext3 are time proven.
Name anything Win. does that Linux doesn't do & usually it does it better.
Years ago I setup a DOS game PC, it ran 3 years, then the kid pulled the plug.
Drivespace repaired the drive, & it's still running today, over 5 more years!
Linux easily has that kind of feasability, & better than that on most accounts.

Has anyone ever had an install of Win. that lasted more than a few years at best?
An operating system that can't stand the test of time is infeasable by any standard.

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#44 Post by Pizzasgood »

Warning, this is a long, reminiscent post about my old Win98SE setup. Sorry. Feel free to skip.
Has anyone ever had an install of Win. that lasted more than a few years at best?
I don't know how long it had been working before I got it, but my Windows 98SE setup lasted at least four years with me at the keyboard, which is a pretty considerable feat (even Puppy hasn't lasted more than a couple months of my continuous use). I had Litestep as the shell (taskbar and desktop) rather than Explorer, which drastically cut down on the "Explorer has caused an illegal operation" errors, along with being more useful (Linux-style right-click) and infinitely better looking. I played with a registry-editor and moved "Program Files" and the desktop folder to a separate harddrive. I manually edited the registry to point at an icon library file instead of shell32.dll to make system icon changing easier (didn't like the idea of editing shell32.dll itself). As a consequence, I installed XP icons (minus alpha-trans) and could swap the library for any other set I wanted. I also swapped out the sounds for Sonic the Hedgehog soundeffects, except the error sound, which I replaced with a car-crash from one of my SimCity games (makes an error sound really bad). I installed Context, a text-editor with syntax-highlighting, tabs, and geometric-selecting. Winzip was some 200-300 days late for it's registration and going strong. The 'bird was reborn a 'fox on that system.

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention Winamp. You see, there was a "glitch" with Litestep that made the entire desktop (minus icons and taskbar) become the Winamp visualization. To this day, that was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen a computer do, period.


Wanna take a guess what killed my fun? Windows Update. One day I ran it, just like all the other days, and the computer dropped dead. By this point I had Puppy running full steam, so I gave up on fixing it after half a week and dug out my old Windows disks. I spent a good day figuring out my keys (they were missing a character or two, and hard to tell if it's a G or 6) and reinstalling basic stuff like Word. Never bothered re-tweaking it as I didn't use it anymore anyway, and I was already planning out my new computer (gave the old machine to my brother).
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

User avatar
lickthefrog2
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed 22 Nov 2006, 18:30

#45 Post by lickthefrog2 »

Flash wrote:But the whole point of the original post of this thread, as I understood it, is that when a beginner looks under the hood of Linux for the first time he sees a pile of spaghetti. Sure, if he sticks with it he may unravel it enough to make sense of it, but why bother? That *other* OS offers an easier way to get the job done. Most people just want to use a computer to do something. They don't want to marry the thing, and they'd rather not have to go back to school just to get it to do what they want, if they can avoid it. Isn't that what application programs are for?"
Well, I'm sure I'm not qualified enough with Linux to really add a valuable perspective from an expert side, but from an observer's perspective, this fascinates me. Thanks to this thread, I took a look at GoboLinux's site but haven't decided yet to try it.

To be honest, the debate is probably useful, and I'm sure that Linux expert opinions are far more valuable than people who are new to it. I have seen threads devoted to the File System and the experts really thrash the people who don't know enough about why the directories are where they are.

Personally, I don't mind learning, though learning is taking some time. I used to have to dig around Windows hidden files and I am doing the same thing in Linux. This is my learning process. Actually, Linux is easier because back then I didn't even know there was such a thing as a user forum where so much valuable information is shared.

The reason why I'm using Linux isn't because it's easier or better or anything like that. It's for philosophical reasons. The free and open source nature of Linux and most of the software that runs on it is why I'm here. I'm here because I heard Eben Moglen talk about why free and open source software is so important.

Are there things I wish were easier? Yes. Am I going to try and recommend Linux to people? Yes, but with some caveats (in a lot of cases, I'm thinking about older people who simply aren't interested in learning, but who have machines that aren't upgrading well to new Windows). That's why I like Puppy.

Anyway, as I said, I'm sure the debate is valuable, but in this case, I'll just wait and follow the leaders in the movement. For me, lately, my heroes are based around this site.

Thanks,
lickthefrog2

marksouth2000
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006, 20:43

#46 Post by marksouth2000 »

lickthefrog2 wrote:...I'm sure the debate is valuable....
The value of the debate is what most of the debate is about.

For example, I absolutely disagree with you. I think the debate is pointless.

Now I'll tell you why I think it's pointless. The definition of a file hierarchy is not a problem with a unique solution. So criticising it by saying "that's not what I would have done!" is pointless, as is debating the relative merits of slightly different schemes, since we already have one scheme in widespread use that works perfectly adequately.

If there were some glaring deficiency of the FHS that was preventing you from delivering some worldshaking software, then we'd all be keen to work to fix it. (This scenario has actually happened and been addressed in the past, and is the reason why some parts of the hierarchy were added where and when they were, for example /proc.)

Finally, an obvious point that seems, nonetheless, to have escaped some: most people never need to know anything at all about the Linux FHS. If you're the kind of person that needs to know, then it's the least of your worries. If you don't, then it is exactly none of your worries.

mark "no worries" south

User avatar
lickthefrog2
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed 22 Nov 2006, 18:30

#47 Post by lickthefrog2 »

marksouth2000 wrote:Finally, an obvious point that seems, nonetheless, to have escaped some: most people never need to know anything at all about the Linux FHS.
Actually, I have read this repeatedly.

This seems to me to be an issue with the technological divide. I work in an impoverished region and there are plenty of people here who can't understand the Windows file system either. Obviously they shouldn't be poking around in it.

But, then, their computers sit there broken, taking up space because of something really stupid and simple for any one of us to fix.

Sure, the file system needs to be complex for software designers, but for a great many users who can't understand it, it's that much harder to rescue still useful hardware. Rich people just go buy a new one. Poor people need Linux.

Again, I'm not supporting people who suggest a need for changing the FS; I'm just saying that if there's a way for the system to teach people how it works, maybe that's useful. I don't even know if that's possible, but, then, I didn't think it was possible to be using Linux to read and write files to my NTFS drive and I can just fine.

lickthefrog2

marksouth2000
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006, 20:43

#48 Post by marksouth2000 »

lickthefrog2 wrote:This seems to me to be an issue with the technological divide. I work in an impoverished region and there are plenty of people here who can't understand the Windows file system either. Obviously they shouldn't be poking around in it.

I do not understand the Windows file layout at all, but that is only a distraction here, so let us leave it alone.
...the file system needs to be complex for software designers,
I doubt that. More likely the original designers made the system just complex enough to be sufficiently rich for their purposes. They were striving for simplicity, after all.
...but for a great many users who can't understand it, it's that much harder to rescue still useful hardware. Rich people just go buy a new one. Poor people need Linux.
Here we are in complete agreement. You can find many posts here by me where I suggest people recycle and reuse computers. Check out my post on the ideal Puppy machine on linuxquestions.org. I keep asking for others to consider older and weaker hardware when developing new Puppy versions, and I keep a few old machines and report on the results with them for each new Puppy when possible.
I'm just saying that if there's a way for the system to teach people how it works, maybe that's useful.
Also agreed. Your approach contains the seeds of more fruitful activity. I would suggest that the best way to teach people is to start by encouraging them not to fear knowledge or the acquisition of knowledge. Starting out saying "oh that is just too complicated, I will never understand that, it should have been made differently for my benefit" (paraphrase of first post in thread) is not an approach that gets anyone anywhere. The beauty of Linux is that everything is in the open, and nearly everything that one needs to know is on the web somewhere.

TSEIYF :)

Cheers,
Mark 8)

User avatar
Gn2
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon 16 Oct 2006, 05:33
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

#49 Post by Gn2 »

Iyaw (TSEIYF) Kikway ?

(Nikaki-astan ci ohota) - Kinihta-akayasimon > Ciitwestamawin pacimasis lmahti.

marksouth2000
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006, 20:43

#50 Post by marksouth2000 »

No, Gn2, it isn't Cree this time :)

Code: Select all

# export TSEIYF="The Search Engine Is Your Friend"
Cheers,
Mark 8)

User avatar
Gn2
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon 16 Oct 2006, 05:33
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

#51 Post by Gn2 »

Kiyam.... Ninohte-wapamaw wicih :wink: Taniweha anihi >
No standard web pages containing all your search terms were
found.

Your search - acronym definitition TSEIYF - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.

swarnick
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue 26 Dec 2006, 03:21

Commercial Linux recognizes this as a problem

#52 Post by swarnick »

I don't know if this will revive a dead thread. The last post was in Oct 2006 and its Jan 1 2007 today. I DO NOT think this a sterile discussion and that's why I'm chiming in at this late date.

On my day job I work a lot with Commerical Linux Workstations: SUSE, Fedora, Gentoo. One problem sysadmins face on all of those systems is that the default installation of things into /usr/local (/bin, /lib, etc.) becomes (very) unwieldy when you get lots of apps installed.

Most vendors who need there software installed cleanly solve this by using the /opt filesystem and creating their own directory, e.g. /opts/sybase, /opts/CA/harvest, etc. This lets them write scripts to install, deinstall and upgrade their software without getting entangled in what has been installed previously in /usr/local on a particular machine.

For all of the faults of Windows, c:\program files is an excellent idea. and the existence of /opt for installations on Linux seems to prove that many people agree.

Using /opt seems to solve the problem at hand, which is getting your stuff to install in a way that allows you to maintain it. The chances that anyone (ever) will change the primary layout of a Unix/Linux filesystem are vanishingly small. However, you can always add your own mount point and (e.g. /opt) and keep things clean that way. "Embrace and extend" rather than fighting the flow.

No matter what the OS you always need find, which, etc.

GWJMateo
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed 27 Dec 2006, 16:56

#53 Post by GWJMateo »

I'll jump in on the discussion as well.

The way I see it, GoboLinux has a nice file structure, but doesn't completely do away with the legacy file system, since it's simply hidden.

That is good and bad, since things will still compile and work, but it's also another layer of complex symbolic links on top of the existing file structure. Interestingly, the complexity is completely admin side: it seems to have little or no effect on the operation of the OS itself.

I've started working with Gobo as part of a project I am working on, and once you strip out KDE...it's very light, complete, and well done...but I don't see where it would have any real relevance to Puppy.

You could, for example, strip out the Kernel from Gobo, add Compile, etc., but isn't technology moving filesystem agnostic? Isn't that what Beagle, Google Desktop, and WinFS do: allow you to access your files without really messing with folders or navigation?

I'm just wondering if there isn't an end run to be made here.

User avatar
miriam
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed 06 Dec 2006, 23:46
Location: Queensland, Australia
Contact:

#54 Post by miriam »

When I posted my initial suggestion I was full of hope and honest interest, but I was appalled at the amount of antagonism it prompted. Even worse was the almost religious belief that Linux is the Answer and that it had been handed to us on a holy platter which it would be blasphemy to criticise. This is the kind of response I would have expected from Mac people. I was astonished and saddened to see it in a Linux community.

It only takes a minute to see what a mess the Linux system of directories is. Look for a binary file? sure...
  • /bin
    /sbin
    /usr/bin
    /usr/local/bin
    /usr/sbin
    /usr/X11R6/bin
    /usr/lib/mut/bin
    /root/my-applications/bin
It's gotta be in one of those, right? Well no, there are still heaps of places people put binaries.

How about libraries?
  • /lib
    /lib/modules/2.6.16.7/lib
    /root/my-applications/lib
    /root/my-applications/xmms/lib
    /root/my-roxapps/gimpshop/lib
    /usr/X11R6/lib
    /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/locale/lib
    /usr/lib
    /usr/local/lib
    /var/lib
    /var/local/lib
and there is now a tendency by many programmers to make subdirectories in any one of those and collect their own libraries in them -- a practise which I think is a step in the right direction, but because it doesn't take it to its logical conclusion it simply ends up complicating the file layout still further.

And those are the easy ones. Try looking for a configuration file. What to search for? something .ini ? or .config ? or .conf ? or .xml ? or prefs.something? It's probably in your ~ folder... errr, unless it isn't... maybe it's been put in /etc or maybe /usr/etc or /usr/local/etc or in one of the folders in /usr/local/apps or one of the folders in /usr/local/share or maybe...
but you get the picture. It could be almost anywhere and called almost anything.

Appealing to the file system standard document I posted the link to is no defence of the layout. The document was drafted as an attempt to get the crazy file structure under some kind of coherent control. It was prompted by exactly the same concerns that I voiced. Read the beginning of the document:

Code: Select all

Why Standardise?

    * No Standards in the Variants of Unix
          o No standard layout
          o Historical layouts
                + BSD
                + System V
                + SunOS 

    * Lack of regularity
          o Difficult for newcomers to Linux
                + especially from non-UNIX backgrounds 
          o Experienced UNIX users found navigating difficult 

    * Incompatibilities for developers and users
          o Symbolic link workarounds becoming the norm
          o Movements between distributions very difficult 
Unfortunately in trying to please everyone they pleased no-one, and pretty much everybody ignores it. If they had bit the bullet and trimmed down the file layout to something more rational then it might have been accepted by more people. Things used to be simpler, but I guess some of the over-critical newbies who like to pose as all-knowing grand masters don't remember this.

I guess I was wrong to suggest anything constructive here. That's a pity, but I won't bother again. I've just found out about a Linux site where girls can post and be taken seriously.

For the record, I've been using computers since the 1980s and over the years have taught myself around 20 computer languages. I've been building 3d virtual worlds since about 1989, and real-time virtual worlds since 1997. I have built many of my own computers, from my earliest ones using soldering iron and a hacked-together keyboard when 2k was a phenomenal amount of memory, to my current, fairly high-end computers, 3 of which are sitting on my desk right now (I use each for a different purpose) and my laptop on my bed and my Palm computer which goes everywhere with me. I have direct experience with dozens of different operating systems and about 4 different flavors of Linux. I don't say this to make myself out to be important -- far from it. I'm just an ordinary geekgirl trying to fix things. I simply say this to show that dismissing my suggestions as stupid is perhaps a little shortsighted.

My thanks to Flash and GuestToo for injecting some thoughtfulness back into the discussion from time to time. You two guys were a breath of fresh air.
[color=blue]A life! Cool! Where can I download one of those from?[/color]

muggins
Posts: 6724
Joined: Fri 20 Jan 2006, 10:44
Location: hobart

#55 Post by muggins »

i think it's terrible that you found the general puppy community's response to your query to be overwhelmingly negative & defensive, and you feel the need to look elsewhere for a group.

anybody should feel free to post any query, regardless of their computer competency, otherwise forums should be locked for conservative technoboffins only.

User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

#56 Post by Flash »

miriam, I for one hope you stick around. The forum wants thoughtful, articulate people with experience.

As for reforming the Linux filesystem, you can do good by keeping the subject alive, and giving a nudge whenever the opportunity arises. The mess that is Linux's filesystem grew like topsy precisely because everyone has some say in how Linux turns out, kind of like how an ouija board works. Even Bill Gates gets to shoot off his mouth in this forum. :lol:

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#57 Post by Pizzasgood »

From what I've seen, this is one of the more heated topics. If you stay, you'll find that the majority are more enjoyable.

Also, I don't think anyone was trying to worship Linux, but rather to suggest that much careful thought was put into it, and should also be put into any changes, and that the current system wasn't designed 'willy-nilly' and isn't oriented toward desktop use anyway.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that it's used that way, and things have gotten muddled. Life generally doesn't follow the ideal. If it did, we wouldn't need spell check.

My opinion is to make apps as location-independent as possible, so the user or administrator can put it wherever the best place for the job happens to be. Also, to try preventing the need for the user to browse the filesystem in the first place.


One thing that I find useful when searching for something is to deconstruct the original package. Then I only see that packages files, so I can locate the config files and whatnot with ease. Then just go to that location in the actual filesystem.
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#58 Post by sunburnt »

GoboLinux is a project to make the Linux FS more like WinHoes.

Any file sys. is a reflection of how the OS must operate.
Change the way Linux works, & then you can make a new FS to go with it.

I've invisioned a morph of Linux that has very few files... so a simpler FS.
As I said above, this would make for a nearly new OS (like Apple's).
With few files in the OS, there's not much of a FS, apps. would be attached
at mount points, so they'd have their own FS... probably in Squash files.

User avatar
fudgy
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed 07 Jun 2006, 09:40
Location: Berlin, Germany

#59 Post by fudgy »

miriam, what you suggest is nothing more than rewriting a whole system.

Nothing against the idea, but work for years. You have to change the mind of some millions of programmers who get used to their individual (anarchistic) way. This is for shure not desirable for the user. Linux is user-unfriendly. At the end 'your' system wont be called Linux anymore. OS Y perhaps... who knows. Go for it!

Apart from that, any attempt to make executables location-independent is greatly appreciated. That results in a bigger memory footprint though. I dont care. But probably other puppy users will.

fudgy

User avatar
debernardis
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat 12 Nov 2005, 08:01
Contact:

#60 Post by debernardis »

IMHO one right way to look at this issue is go *do* something different by yourself, like gobolinux people did, and show the world for peer-review. This is the real thing. The rest is chitter-chatter and flame wars for the sake of it.
And, I hope Miriam stays here with us and with Puppy.

Post Reply