simpler file layout
Posted: Thu 07 Dec 2006, 13:26
Hi folks. I've been lurking for quite a long time. Over some years I've been trying many different Linux variants in the quest to find a suitable one to invest my time and effort into. I think with Puppy I have found that one.
A big problem with all Linuxes is that the file tree is a total mess. Trying to find things, if you don't already know where they are, can be a real nightmare. Binary files (executable programs) can be scattered over sometimes a dozen "bin" folders and can actually end up almost anywhere. Shell scripts and configuration files are an even worse mess with, as far as I can see, very little rhyme or reason as to their placement. Each programmer, it seems, has his or her own idea of where stuff should go. The only thing everybody seems to agree on is not to follow the standard (with good reason as the standard is frankly insane http://www.linuxsa.org.au/meetings/1997 ... sstnd.html ).
None of this matters if everything operates properly and you never need to fix anything by hand. But it never goes that way. Trying to track down the important parts of a Linux system when it fails to operate properly can end up costing you the best part of a day. It shouldn't be like this. And it never used to be.
Not very long ago file trees were much simpler. MSWindows is a fragile piece of spyware crap, but it does have a sensible, rational file structure that lets you find stuff quickly and easily. The Amiga computer has the simplest, easiest to use file tree of any modern computer. OS-9 (the small computer Unix clone not the Mac OS) had an incredibly simple file tree. Such a layout would make Puppy sooo much more friendly.
- a folder for executables
- a folder for scripts
- a folder for libraries, device drivers, and codecs
- a folder for configuration files and logs
- a folder for links to startup files
- a folder for data
- a folder for temporary files
No special folder for mounted devices. They're auto-mounted at the top level, though should be able to be selectively unmounted any time.
A special folder is not needed for each user, though they would quite likely want to create one. User distinction and file protection is provided perfectly well by the permission bits. Most Puppy machines are single-user. Forcing an elaborate structure on them is overkill.
What do you think?
A big problem with all Linuxes is that the file tree is a total mess. Trying to find things, if you don't already know where they are, can be a real nightmare. Binary files (executable programs) can be scattered over sometimes a dozen "bin" folders and can actually end up almost anywhere. Shell scripts and configuration files are an even worse mess with, as far as I can see, very little rhyme or reason as to their placement. Each programmer, it seems, has his or her own idea of where stuff should go. The only thing everybody seems to agree on is not to follow the standard (with good reason as the standard is frankly insane http://www.linuxsa.org.au/meetings/1997 ... sstnd.html ).
None of this matters if everything operates properly and you never need to fix anything by hand. But it never goes that way. Trying to track down the important parts of a Linux system when it fails to operate properly can end up costing you the best part of a day. It shouldn't be like this. And it never used to be.
Not very long ago file trees were much simpler. MSWindows is a fragile piece of spyware crap, but it does have a sensible, rational file structure that lets you find stuff quickly and easily. The Amiga computer has the simplest, easiest to use file tree of any modern computer. OS-9 (the small computer Unix clone not the Mac OS) had an incredibly simple file tree. Such a layout would make Puppy sooo much more friendly.
- a folder for executables
- a folder for scripts
- a folder for libraries, device drivers, and codecs
- a folder for configuration files and logs
- a folder for links to startup files
- a folder for data
- a folder for temporary files
No special folder for mounted devices. They're auto-mounted at the top level, though should be able to be selectively unmounted any time.
A special folder is not needed for each user, though they would quite likely want to create one. User distinction and file protection is provided perfectly well by the permission bits. Most Puppy machines are single-user. Forcing an elaborate structure on them is overkill.
What do you think?