Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Wed 01 Oct 2014, 08:53
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
simpler file layout
Moderators: Flash, Ian, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 2 of 5 [64 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Author Message
Lobster
Official Crustacean


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 15117
Location: Paradox Realm

PostPosted: Fri 08 Dec 2006, 00:57    Post subject:  

Smile

Is it a question of search and indexing?
I tend to save files in the programs default.

If you know what file (aprox) you are searching for and you wish to search/index then this could be simplified. MU I believe created a simplified search.

I can not remember my own web sites URL, so key words in Google work just as well . . .

Does an improved search/index offer a potential solution?

_________________
Puppy WIKI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Pizzasgood


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 6270
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

PostPosted: Fri 08 Dec 2006, 01:06    Post subject:  

Eh? What's confusing? The program will either be in (or have a symlink in) /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/local/bin, /usr/X11R7/bin, /usr/local/share/apps, or, in the case of Puppy, /root/my-applications/bin or /root/my-roxapps.
Libraries in /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib, /usr/X11R7/lib, .......

Hmmm.... which <program-name> is very very useful, that's for sure.

I've never worked with a big multi-user system, so I can't comment on that. For Puppy though, it seems rather redundant. I can understand having /bin and /usr/bin separate, but /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin? Unnecessary. Not much can be done about it though, other than standardizing on one and using it whenever possible. The other would still exist, but it wouldn't have much in it. Or would it be possible to move everything from /usr/local/bin into /usr/bin, then remove /usr/local/bin and make it a symlink to /usr/bin? If so, we could do that with many of the duplicates and just use a single place.

The idea of splitting up packages and mashing them all together is also annoying to me. On the other hand, it makes sense because of the whole 'path' thing. I still don't like it. I'm more of a fan of sticking everything in it's own folder within /usr/local/share, then symlinking the binaries and libraries to /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/lib. That way it's in the path, but it's also all togeather. Plus, if something else with the same name tries to go into /sr/

I also like using Rox-Apps whenever possible. I actually made a Rox-App of Firefox once. Rox-Filer itself is a Rox-App. They're easy to make, automatically get the icon assigned to them (which they contain), can usually be moved anywhere, and you can even set up right-click menus without any hassle. You can't just type their names into the terminal to run them though, because they aren't in the path.

I definitely agree with GuestToo about simplicity. For example, XFCE is a very nice WM, but it almost never survives more than a month of my use. IceWM, on the other hand, has almost never had any problems unless I was specifically targeting it. It's also more simple.

I don't see a very good way to simplify the filesystem and maintain compatibility though, short of extremely liberal use of symlinks. That could cause problems too, though.

_________________
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

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Gn2


Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 936
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

PostPosted: Fri 08 Dec 2006, 01:10    Post subject:  

Slocate + all present built-in aids -

Find - whereis - ldd - ld - ls -ll - grep ......
= Work within - or remain on outside looking in ?

Quote:
It ain' t so much th' arrow - It's Wink Laughing the Enjin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
GuestToo
Puppy Master

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 4078

PostPosted: Fri 08 Dec 2006, 02:11    Post subject:  

Quote:
You can't just type their names into the terminal to run them though, because they aren't in the path

actually, you can ... there is a patch for Bash that lets you run any roxapp that is in a dir in the PATH, just by typing the name of the roxapp (the name of the rox appdir) ... it works in Puppy, i tried it a long time ago, when Puppy did not have Bash, only Busybox's ash ... i was one of the few who had bash as my standard shell

of course, there's nothing to stop you from putting a wrapper script or a symlink in the PATH ... in fact, many of my roxapps automatically update a symlink in my-applications/bin every time the roxapp is clicked ... in case the roxapp is moved to another dir ... most of my roxapps can be moved to any directory ... many of them can be run from the CLI

incidentally, the Apple os makes use of application directories too ... a result of influence of NextStep, i think

i don't like XFCE ... i don't know why exactly, i like the idea of modularity, but XFCE is a wm i don't enjoy using ... I like Icewm, but i wish i could switch desktops by rolling the mouse wheel, like Fluxbox or JWM or even KDE

Quote:
I don't see a very good way to simplify the filesystem and maintain compatibility though, short of extremely liberal use of symlinks

that seem to be exactly what Gobo does ... it has a simplified file system (i especially like their simplifed boot scripts), and it has some hidden symlinks for the legacy file system ... for example, ls / would not show /etc, but if you want to edit fstab, and you don't remember where it is, you can type leafpad /etc/fstab, and it will work (assuming you have leafpad installed ... i would)

unfortunately, i don't think it would be practical to simplify Puppy's file system, for compatibilty reasons ... as Gobo Linux has demonstrated, it can be done, but i don't think anyone is willing to do the work necessary to make a simplified Puppy ... i think i would like a GoboPup

incidentally, if anyone wants to try Gobo, it is a live cd that can be installed to the hard drive, like Knoppix ... and it uses unionfs too, now, so the file system is writable

another live cd that is interesting is the L4 kernel demo ... http://demo.tudos.org/
the L4 kernel is a micro kernel, with most of the kernels functions working as modules in user space as opposed to Linus Torvald's monolithic kernel in which much of the functionality is performed by the kernel in kernel space ... some of the L4 demos of security features and abilities to easily manage multiple processes are interesting ... the Hurd kernel is a microkernel ... i suspect it would have been better if the Linux kernel had been designed as a microkernel from the beginning

i think we are all saying the same thing ... something like:

"the complicated Linux file structure is a necessary evil"

but i think what Gn2 may be saying is (i do not want to put words in his mouth):

"the complicated Linux file structure is a necessary evil"

while i am saying:

"the complicated Linux file structure is a necessary evil"

by the way, i find the where script that comes with the Bash source (i think) to be useful at times ... http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?&t=10469
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Gn2


Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 936
Location: virtual - Veni vidi, nihil est adpulerit

PostPosted: Fri 08 Dec 2006, 08:12    Post subject:    

Of what use is there to label it as "Evil" ?
Why run the risk of (inadvertantly?) sounding as if there were any malicious intent or insistence of - "Do it this way - or else" ?

> Like it or lump it - we all have the freedom of choice:
Work within the supplied tools .... or change to use own preferences ?

There is NOTHING stopping us.... unlike many "other" O/System frustrations we often encounter !

When any suspect a fuction is not availabe yet exists, use
Code:
env
To confirm - then alter as-supplied defaults to fit.

This seems to be a non-issue - why continue to berate something that we can alter -
= Focus on own needs, not what is perceived as an inherent legacy which has no alternatives ?

Sort of the whole point of even using an OSS platform .

Anything breaks - you get to keep the pieces, to sort through & ponder your "improvements"
Were they in fact, actually wiser or comparable to the groundwork of those who
> have a proven track record of knowing Linux ...... far more clearly than non-maintainers can ever hope to achieve ?

= Learn to walk before second -guessing a proven Olympics marathoner of Linux expertise.

Which will never be me & NTIM > I doubt like hell will be found within present Puppy Ranks.
Puppy was not any new invention - eveything is always built on hardwork & talents of others.... long before
any came along & started to "improve" the Linux O/System design philosophies.

Barry K showed us all the way, came up with great new innovations -
= Do as you please (he imposed no impractical restrictions AFAICS ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Dougal


Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Posts: 2505
Location: Hell more grotesque than any medieval woodcut

PostPosted: Fri 08 Dec 2006, 12:00    Post subject:  

I honestly don't understand what's complicated about the directory structure… as a newby (with no knowledge of how OS's work) I read the Linux Filesystem Hierarchy link and found it to make complete sense.

Pizza mentioned the many bin directories, but they all have different purposes, so you should know where to go and look for a certain app. As for /usr/local, that entire path has a very specific purpose.

Pizza: why does it make more sense to put a bin/lib in a dir and then create a link to it rather than put it in the PATH in the first place??

The thing I find most confusing is actually having app-dirs in /usr/local, which causes a mess (since you should only have dirs like "usr", "lib", "share" and so on in there).

GuestToo: yesterday I read that Gobo "I am not clueless" thing and I remain unconvinced.
He seemed to answer mostly stupid (hypothetical) questions (and not the things that don't make sense to me) while not explaining the advantages from a OS point of view -- all the while concentrating on showing he knows a lot of obscure OS's…

I think it is first of all a matter of personal taste. Some people like having all their clothes in a heap on the floor -- so they know everything is in one place-- while others like to have a closet with lots of drawers…

_________________
What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Pizzasgood


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 6270
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

PostPosted: Fri 08 Dec 2006, 12:45    Post subject:  

Quote:
Pizza: why does it make more sense to put a bin/lib in a dir and then create a link to it rather than put it in the PATH in the first place??

Organization. If I want to find out which files are part of some app, I go to it's directory, and there they are. Otherwise if I just threw it into */bin and */lib, I'd have to remember which files belong to it. It gets worse as more things are added. Also, this way if I'm exploring */bin or */lib and see something, I can check where it's linked to to find out what it is. Saves a trip to Google.

_________________
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

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
sunburnt


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 5032
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri 08 Dec 2006, 23:05    Post subject:  

Both types of dir. structures work well, each has advantages.
Being from Win., & like others who have a "tidy" complex, mixing apps. isn't tidy.

But then if you want to backup your entire system configuration... Linux is a snap.

If you want another setup type, do as Apple did & use a dir. overlay to make it appear different.
This has none of the problems of actually trying to change the structure (feed back links, etc.).
Gobo Linux uses a mix of techniques to accomplish this, some real, some links, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
amish

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 616

PostPosted: Fri 08 Dec 2006, 23:18    Post subject:  

i was all in favor of a different layout until i read the linuxcommand.org tutorial. after that, the "complicated" layout made perfect sense. so now i have reservations about the change, but i assume the puppy community will eventually change it, and i'm sure it will be tolerable.

it will be a lot more tolerable if there is a fore-warning, and someone documents the change properly, without having to download the iso and see for yourself. p.s. find / -depth | grep what.to.look.for

_________________
sadly, it is not possible to separate politics from free software. free software - politics = unfree software.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Dougal


Joined: 19 Oct 2005
Posts: 2505
Location: Hell more grotesque than any medieval woodcut

PostPosted: Sat 09 Dec 2006, 09:18    Post subject:  

Pizzasgood wrote:

Organization. If I want to find out which files are part of some app, I go to it's directory, and there they are. Otherwise if I just threw it into */bin and */lib, I'd have to remember which files belong to it. It gets worse as more things are added. Also, this way if I'm exploring */bin or */lib and see something, I can check where it's linked to to find out what it is. Saves a trip to Google.


I see it the other way round: if I want to look for icons -- I go to the icons dir. I want a library -- to the lib dir. Etc.

Finding what a certain package includes can be done from the file-lists in the tarball in the Pupget repository… besides, it's the kind of thing needed by us when we're playing around, but irrelevant for the running of the OS.

Amish: I think you can rest assured that the Puppy filesystem won't change… not only does it require Barry's not liking things the way they are now (who knows what he thinks?), but it's a lot of work that is, in the end, not worth the effort.

_________________
What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
marksouth2000

Joined: 05 Apr 2006
Posts: 620

PostPosted: Sat 09 Dec 2006, 17:39    Post subject:  

miriam wrote:
Quote:
Linux is the best-scaling operating system in history.

It is nice to be enthusiastic, but that isn't quite right. There are plenty of other operating systems that scale brilliantly -- as well as, and sometimes better than, Linux.


Actually, it is quite right. Enthusiasm can be rationally based, you know.

Presently, Linux scales from tiny embedded systems (like the phone in my pocket right now) to the Google cluster, which is believed to contain almost a quarter of a million nodes. Take a look at the top-500 supercomputers list. Nearly all of them are running Linux. CERN will be using Linux clusters to handle several TB/hour when the beam is turned back on next year (2007). That's heavier network traffic than anything ever seen before. CERN already holds several records for sustained transatlantic data transfer rates. Can you guess what OS platform they used?

Something must have been done right.

Quote:
Come on Mark. I've read a lot of your posts. (I'm a long-time lurker.) You are a smart guy.

If you think that I'm smart, the optimal course of action would be to respect and consider my opinions even when I am disagreeing with you.

Now, if you still care to put any flesh on the bones of this discussion, the real question is, what would be gained by re-organising the FHS? And would it be a net gain or a net loss?

Cheers,
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
marksouth2000

Joined: 05 Apr 2006
Posts: 620

PostPosted: Sat 09 Dec 2006, 18:01    Post subject:  

GuestToo wrote:
Quote:
when one sees something has been built by other people that one doesn't understand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

In Latin, and in English, "ad hominem" denotes an attack on a specific individual. The use of the indefinite pronoun means this cannot be an ad hominem attack. If I say "anyone who disagrees with me is a fool" I am being harsh, but it cannot be interpreted as ad hominem.

Quote:
Quote:
It's good news for Puppy that practically everyone who visits the forum has a clearer idea of how a filesystem should work than Ken Thomson, Dennis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan, Andrew Tanenbaum, and Linus Torvalds put together

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Well, no. More like appeal to Occam's razor by the use of irony. That said, there is a reason that those people are considered to be authorities in their field, and appeal to authority is how most of society functions (eg, law courts, hospitals), so don't knock it, unless you would prefer to appeal to the authority of Wikipedia....

Mixing a whole bunch of quotes from different people together and then dismissing each with a single line from Wikipedia is merely a rhetorical device to associate the arguments with each other. It doesn't address the merits or otherwise of the individual arguments themselves.

Don't you find it contradictory that you (deceptively) dismiss my comments as if they are a personal attack on someone, yet the strongest emotional and pejorative language has come from very few contributors in this thread? Examples are "insane" and "evil" to describe perfectly rational choices made by the Unix and Linux designers.

Yes, other file systems and structures can be conceived. Are the existing ones bad? No. Is it worth changing them? No, the costs exceed the gains (if there are any) at this stage.

Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Flash
Official Dog Handler


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 11081
Location: Arizona USA

PostPosted: Sat 09 Dec 2006, 23:58    Post subject:  

I hope this isn't going to degenerate into a flame war. Laughing

It should be made clear for the benefit of beginners who may be trying to figure out what we're so excited about, that the Linux file "system" we're arguing about is not the filesystems such as ext2, ext3 and so forth. As I understand it, the Linux file "system" that is visible to the user, with its cryptic and unhelpful names, is (a miserable failure of) an attempt to present files sorted or arranged into a form convenient for human use. Smile It is only connected to those underlying filesystems by the fact that it makes use of them.

Marksouth, what is rational about making permanent a top-level directory called etc? The name suggests nothing and everything. I could go on. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Pizzasgood


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 6270
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

PostPosted: Sun 10 Dec 2006, 01:09    Post subject:  

And now we have a very good example of why the filesystem isn't consistent. Nobody agrees Laughing
_________________
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

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
klhrevolutionist


Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 1124

PostPosted: Sun 10 Dec 2006, 01:37    Post subject:  

I have to agree that changing the structure would be a good idea for security reasons. Though others would say well then this or that ....

It is an idea that needs to be considered, though it won't with the mainstream..

_________________
Heaven is on the way, until then let's get the truth out!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 5 [64 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » House Training » Users ( For the regulars )
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1237s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0074s) ][ GZIP on ]