simpler file layout

Using applications, configuring, problems
Message
Author
User avatar
Lobster
Official Crustacean
Posts: 15522
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 06:06
Location: Paradox Realm
Contact:

#16 Post by Lobster »

:)

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 Raspup 8.2Final 8)
Puppy Links Page http://www.smokey01.com/bruceb/puppy.html :D

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

#17 Post by Pizzasgood »

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

#18 Post by Gn2 »

Slocate + all present built-in aids -

Find - whereis - ldd - ld - ls -ll - grep ......
= Work within - or remain on outside looking in ?
It ain' t so much th' arrow - It's :wink: :lol: the Enjin

GuestToo
Puppy Master
Posts: 4083
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 18:11

#19 Post by GuestToo »

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
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

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

#20 Post by Gn2 »

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: Select all

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 ?

User avatar
Dougal
Posts: 2502
Joined: Wed 19 Oct 2005, 13:06
Location: Hell more grotesque than any medieval woodcut

#21 Post by Dougal »

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

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

#22 Post by Pizzasgood »

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.
[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.

#23 Post by sunburnt »

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.

amish
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun 24 Sep 2006, 23:15

#24 Post by amish »

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.

User avatar
Dougal
Posts: 2502
Joined: Wed 19 Oct 2005, 13:06
Location: Hell more grotesque than any medieval woodcut

#25 Post by Dougal »

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

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

#26 Post by marksouth2000 »

miriam wrote:
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.
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

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

#27 Post by marksouth2000 »

GuestToo wrote:
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.
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

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

#28 Post by Flash »

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

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. :) 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:

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

#29 Post by Pizzasgood »

And now we have a very good example of why the filesystem isn't consistent. Nobody agrees :lol:
[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
klhrevolutionist
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 10:09

#30 Post by klhrevolutionist »

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!

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

#31 Post by Gn2 »

I hope this isn't going to degenerate into a flame war.
With that firmly in mind > It may be wise to stop throwing in non - helpful personal inflamatory asides : I.E.
with its cryptic and unhelpful names, is (a miserable failure of)
What the root level configuration folder was named is totally irrelevant

Example - Why is MarkS being targeted to defend any viewpoint - AFAICS he is only one of several who have
stated logical disclaimers of original contentions - others then jumped on band-wagon to berate present standards as
Evil - insane ...on & on > to what good for the community at large ?

As was stressed - I may not agree -but will defend anybodies right to discuss anything - if done in non-inflamatory...
Or as MarkS POLITELY noted should be presented in non- pejorative mode. ?

What was important - a standard usable for all -

" Why " (etc) was chosen folder name becomes evident -
The long standing 'NIX tradition of names indicating purpose
E.G. "Less" is more - "Born(e)-again command interpreter - break -cut -diff and then"gawk" > EVAL- =
Look at all CLI names. - Figure it out for yourself

Where to store most system configurations = etc etc etc !

If a user wants everything just "lumped" to-gather ~ use static libraries
Don't like something - CHANGE IT Who the ---- has restricted any of your rights to do so ?

Of those who may have the ability - Who here has done so ?
How many have extensively used Linux before "discovering" Puppy !

If the fits of shoo - irritates = change of foo-ware may be needed -( Please - don't blame the Chandelry supplier if ) you are See -sic

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

#32 Post by marksouth2000 »

Flash wrote:I hope this isn't going to degenerate into a flame war. :lol:
...
Marksouth, what is rational about making permanent a top-level directory called etc? The name suggests nothing and everything. I could go on. :wink:
Flash, the topic started as a flame war from the very first post.

To answer your actual question, it's rational because it served the purpose for which the designers included it. They had several directories in / called bin, lib, tmp, usr, sys and dev. Those were for binaries, libraries, temporary files, user files and applications, system files, and device nodes respectively. They needed a directory under root for configuration of other stuff, and they chose to call it etc. They could have called it stuff or misc or conf if they liked. "etc" is as good as those and easy to type, and seems to have worked so far for about three and a half decades on all kinds of hardware under all kinds of loads.

Sometimes one has flexible choice about engineering decisions. Any choice that reaches the design goals straightforwardly is rational.

I think there's nothing I can do to make it simpler than that for anyone.

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

#33 Post by Gn2 »

The OP seems to have vanished ?? : To clarify his own request :

a folder for executables >> (/bin, /sbin)
- a folder for scripts >> (system suplied default executables or user created )?
- a folder for libraries, device drivers, and codecs >> (/lib) ~ (/dev)<< (block & F/sys))
- codecs ~ (dependent on how installed - App defaults or user created >>( /etc) or (/usr sub-folders)

- a folder for configuration files and logs >> (majority of system wide Cfg: (/etc) ~ (logs /var/log)
- a folder for links to startup files >> (executables /etc, symlinked to/bin. & dynamic library dependencies)
~ Otherwise static libraries

- a folder for data >> (dependent on document source /usr/share etal + built-in man/info pages )
- a folder for temporary files (/tmp)
No special folder for mounted devices. They're auto-mounted at the top level
Only by scripted distribution idiosyncrasies - otherwise only the device storing the initiated root file system is needed, for access:
Computer administrator has permissions to /alter system wide default supplied Cfg's stored in

Code: Select all

 /etc
~ Files are fstab & mtab
Mount points are optional as are names - usually in /mnt subfolders
make it simpler

Code: Select all

 
/bin
/boot
/dev
/etc
/home
/lib
/mnt
/opt
/proc
/root
/sbin
/sys
/tmp
/usr
/var

User avatar
Dougal
Posts: 2502
Joined: Wed 19 Oct 2005, 13:06
Location: Hell more grotesque than any medieval woodcut

#34 Post by Dougal »

marksouth2000 wrote:They could have called it stuff or misc or conf if they liked. "etc" is as good as those and easy to type, and seems to have worked so far for about three and a half decades on all kinds of hardware under all kinds of loads.
"etc" is better since it's only three letters!

As for it being "rational", my record collection has a "etc" section.
As I mentioned above, it's a matter of taste: my records are not just ordered alphabetically, but broken into genre sections -- like "lib" "bin" etc in the directory structure.
This might not make sense to others but it does to me.

The thing the Gobo people deserve respect for is the fact that they didn't whine about what they consider "irrational", but actually went and did something about it. If someone wants a GoboPuppy, they're welcome to create one.
What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind

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

#35 Post by Gn2 »

went and did something about it.
=Well said sir - :cool: AMEN to that !

Wonder if "gobbed" systemized structuring could do anything for one of my Out house drawers ?
> If definitely is an "etc category > Where the .....(etc etc) .... is it ?
A "catch-all" storage holder.
(Things go in - expressly so I won't lose them - only to never be seen again...... in 'there" - by mere mortal man) !

Soooo - every few Mo's it gets dunged out - then guess what is first thing needed -
(Of course - it was thrown away - so :evil: NOW I remember it....... well) !

Post Reply