Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #232642 > unrolled thread

Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 04:10 +0100
    Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2021-03-10 05:00 +0100
      Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 13:30 +0100
        Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted  to Debian. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-03-10 13:50 +0100
          Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2021-03-10 14:00 +0100
            Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 19:10 +0100
              Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-10 19:20 +0100
                Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 20:30 +0100
                  Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 22:10 +0100
                    Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted  to Debian. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-03-11 01:10 +0100
                      Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 01:40 +0100
                        Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted  to Debian. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-03-11 01:50 +0100
                          Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 03:30 +0100
                            Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted  to Debian. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-03-11 11:50 +0100
                              Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 12:50 +0100
                      Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-11 10:30 +0100
                        Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-11 11:50 +0100
                        Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-03-11 13:50 +0100
                          Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-11 14:50 +0100
                        Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian. Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-11 18:10 +0100
              Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2021-03-10 19:30 +0100
                Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 20:40 +0100
                  Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian. Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-10 23:30 +0100
                    Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 00:30 +0100
                      Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-11 12:00 +0100
                  Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-03-11 20:00 +0100
                    Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 21:10 +0100
                      Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-03-12 05:10 +0100
                        Windows drive letters (was Re: Is there an alternative filesystem  hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-03-12 10:40 +0100
                          Re: Windows drive letters (was Re: Is there an alternative  filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-03-12 23:30 +0100
                        Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-12 17:10 +0100
                          Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-03-12 23:20 +0100
                      Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-03-12 15:30 +0100
              Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-11 10:20 +0100
            Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian. Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-10 23:20 +0100
              Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Jeremy Ardley <jeremy@ardley.org> - 2021-03-10 23:30 +0100
                Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian. Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-11 00:30 +0100
              Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> - 2021-03-10 23:40 +0100
                Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 00:50 +0100
              Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 01:00 +0100
                Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-03-11 01:30 +0100
                  Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 01:40 +0100
                  Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 02:20 +0100
                    Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 03:10 +0100
          Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-10 14:00 +0100
            Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 14:10 +0100
              Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted  to Debian. The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-03-10 14:30 +0100
                Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 19:10 +0100
          Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 14:10 +0100
            Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 14:30 +0100
          Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian. "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2021-03-10 14:20 +0100
      Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. "J.B. Nicholson" <jbn@forestfield.org> - 2021-03-11 01:50 +0100
    Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2021-03-10 10:10 +0100
    Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-03-10 14:20 +0100
      Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 14:30 +0100
        Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2021-03-10 15:40 +0100
        Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-03-10 16:30 +0100
          Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2021-03-10 18:00 +0100
          Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 21:30 +0100
            Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-10 21:40 +0100
            Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-03-10 22:00 +0100
              Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-03-10 22:10 +0100
                Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 22:30 +0100
            Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian. Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-10 23:50 +0100
              Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 00:40 +0100
                Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-03-11 09:30 +0100
              Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-03-11 05:00 +0100
                Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 06:20 +0100
                  Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-03-11 19:40 +0100
                    Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-03-11 19:50 +0100
      Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2021-03-10 14:30 +0100
        Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 19:10 +0100
    Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> - 2021-03-10 19:20 +0100
    Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian. Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-03-10 23:30 +0100
      Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be  adapted to Debian. Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z <santiagopinth@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 00:30 +0100
        Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian. deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 07:30 +0100

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#232642 — Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello.

While I was making my research before installing Debian
I saw that the filesystem hierarchy is not so friendly
(I'm new to GNU/Linux operating systems).
I saw there was a distribution called GoboLinux which
addressed that inconvenience, but according to a DistroWatch review,
it is not usable at all.

In my opinion, I think there would be no need to make another distro
to make such customizations to the system, it would be better
if it were implemented at a package level on an existing distro.

So, my question is: Is there a way to put another, more friendly,
filesystem hierarchy to Debian, like the one of GoboLinux?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#232645 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

On 10-03-2021 13:08, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> Hello. 
> 
> While I was making my research before installing Debian
> I saw that the filesystem hierarchy is not so friendly
> (I'm new to GNU/Linux operating systems).

Yes, you are.
There is nothing `unfriendly' concerning the filesystem heirarchy.
What negative experiences have you had with it, so far, that inclines
you to this point of view?

> I saw there was a distribution called GoboLinux which
> addressed that inconvenience, but according to a DistroWatch review,
> it is not usable at all.

Again, there is no inconvenience.
 
> In my opinion, I think there would be no need to make another distro
> to make such customizations to the system, it would be better
> if it were implemented at a package level on an existing distro. 
> 
> So, my question is: Is there a way to put another, more friendly,
> filesystem hierarchy to Debian, like the one of GoboLinux?

If Gobolinux is not usable, as you say, why do you seek to emulate it?
The current file system set up is far from `unfriendly', in my
experience.
Cheers!

Harry.

-- 
`The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but
 because of those who look on without doing anything'.
 -- Albert Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232677 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 03/09/2021 23:54, "Weaver" <weaver@riseup.net> wrote:
> What negative experiences have you had with it, so far, that inclines
> you to this point of view?

On 03/10/2021 05:08, "Darac Marjal" <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> wrote:
> How is the filesystem "unfriendly"? It's a filing system. It's purpose
> is to make it easier to find files.

> Perhaps this is something that could be implemented by the base
> operating system, but then we come back to the original question of WHY?
> What's WRONG with the current filesystem hierarchy, in your opinion? You
> stated that it's "unfriendly", but without backing up that assertion.

Well, I just said "unfriendly" because the directories' names
don't tell you with much clarity what is in there.
Of course, since you are accustomed to it, it would look totally normal for
you.

> Neither approach is inherently better than the other. And both
> approaches allow for some usage the other way. On Linux, you can make
> /opt/some-external-program and dump all of that external programs
> binaries, libaries, data files there. On Windows, it's not unheard of
> for applications to drop libraries into C:\Windows\System32, knowing
> that that's a shared folder which anyone can reach.

Hmm, it doesn't necessarily means another philosophy.
Perhaps on Windows, programs have they own libraries to avoid compatibility
issues.
I don't think it would be a good idea to let third-parties programs
modify your system at will.  If Windows provided that libraries
by itself as Debian does, things would have been different
(although compatibility issues could arise without a mix of both
approaches).

> I think you're wrong here, though. It WOULD be necessary to make another
> distro. If you say to developers "you can put your libraries into
> /usr/lib *or* /Program/$pkgname/Libraries/", then you're going to have
> problems. Look at the issues currently happening because Debian has said
> "You can uses SysV *or* systemd": not every package is at the same level
> of parity there.

Perhaps you're right here, but some experimenting could help to see if it
would work.

Please, let me explain better allowing you to read this:
https://github.com/gobolinux/Documentation/wiki/The-GoboLinux-Filesystem-Hierarchy

That hierarchy is not perfect: for example, the Index is a very weird
approach
to solve some problems, although it is not so bad; but at least is a
starting point.

You could put libraries on /System/Libraries instead of /usr/lib.
It looks more descriptive.

He he, yes, my problem is a little trivial one,
but I just wanted to see there was a solution already.

By the way, what does "usr" mean?  I thought it was "user"
untill I took a look inside.  Just asking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232680 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-03-10 at 07:27, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:

> By the way, what does "usr" mean?  I thought it was "user" untill I
> took a look inside.  Just asking.

I've traditionally understood it to stand for "UNIX Shared Resources",
but V.E.R.A. (the Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms) doesn't list that
as a definition; the nearest definition it does have which looks like it
might be related is "User Service Routines".

I can't completely rule out a derivation from "user", but I don't think
that's usually considered likely.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232681 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 10/03/2021 12:52, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:45:16AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>> On 2021-03-10 at 07:27, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, what does "usr" mean?  I thought it was "user" untill I
>>> took a look inside.  Just asking.
>> I've traditionally understood it to stand for "UNIX Shared Resources",
>> but V.E.R.A. (the Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms) doesn't list that
>> as a definition; the nearest definition it does have which looks like it
>> might be related is "User Service Routines".
>>
>> I can't completely rule out a derivation from "user", but I don't think
>> that's usually considered likely.
> Wikipedia [1] leans towards the derivation from "user":
>
>   usr   The "user file system": originally the directory holding
>         user home directories,[15] but already by the Third Edition
>         of Research Unix, ca. 1973, reused to split the operating
>         system's programs over two disks [...]
>
> ...and as usual they have references to follow, which I'm too lazy to
> do now (as usual ;-)
I think all these shortened names derive from a time when computing
resources were limited. If you're using an 80x25 terminal over at 50
bits per second to a time-shared mainframe, it's more comfortable to
type "/usr" than it is to type "/Programs". Easier to type "cp" than to
type "copy", and so on. It's all fairly arbitrary. Why C:\? Why not
System:\? Convention and history and inertia.
>
> Cheers
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usr
>
>  - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232714 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> I think all these shortened names derive from a time when computing
> resources were limited. If you're using an 80x25 terminal over at 50
> bits per second to a time-shared mainframe, it's more comfortable to
> type "/usr" than it is to type "/Programs". Easier to type "cp" than to
> type "copy", and so on. It's all fairly arbitrary. Why C:\? Why not
> System:\? Convention and history and inertia.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usr
> >
> >  - t

But why do we have to use a system designed for such old computers
when the now old computers are much more capable than that.
I think it needs a redesign.

By the way, C:\ looks fine since it is just a letter succession mechanism
for labeling storage devices: C, D, E... it is like: usb0, usb1, usb2...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232716 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: 
> But why do we have to use a system designed for such old computers
> when the now old computers are much more capable than that.
> I think it needs a redesign.

You're not only allowed to think that, you're allowed to get
people together and do it.

All the code in Debian proper has free licenses, and you're
welcome to create a Debian derivation that conforms to your idea
of what is proper.

It's going to be a lot of work, though. You should probably
start with investigating the FHS and debootstrap to figure out what you want.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232726 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

> You're not only allowed to think that, you're allowed to get
> people together and do it.
>
> All the code in Debian proper has free licenses, and you're
> welcome to create a Debian derivation that conforms to your idea
> of what is proper.
>
> It's going to be a lot of work, though. You should probably
> start with investigating the FHS and debootstrap to figure out what you want.
>
> -dsr-

Thanks for your encouragement.  I hope someday it becomes real,
and only with the installation of one meta-package.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232737 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mi, 10 mar 21, 15:26:41, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> > You're not only allowed to think that, you're allowed to get
> > people together and do it.
> >
> > All the code in Debian proper has free licenses, and you're
> > welcome to create a Debian derivation that conforms to your idea
> > of what is proper.
> >
> > It's going to be a lot of work, though. You should probably
> > start with investigating the FHS and debootstrap to figure out what you want.
> >
> > -dsr-
> 
> Thanks for your encouragement.  I hope someday it becomes real,
> and only with the installation of one meta-package.
 
Based on Debian's experience with usr-merge I'm guessing it's *much* 
more involved than that.

Paths are likely hard coded in a *lot* of places (besides the usual 
suspects, like shebangs). 

https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232763 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-03-10 at 16:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Mi, 10 mar 21, 15:26:41, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:

>> Thanks for your encouragement.  I hope someday it becomes real, and
>> only with the installation of one meta-package.
> 
> Based on Debian's experience with usr-merge I'm guessing it's *much*
>  more involved than that.
> 
> Paths are likely hard coded in a *lot* of places (besides the usual 
> suspects, like shebangs).
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge

Well, if all you want is to be able to have more "newbie-friendly"
descriptive names of the directories, it might be possible to achieve
something like that by the simple addition of a collection of symlinks;
just symlink e.g. "/Configuration" to '/etc', '/Programs' to '/bin',
"/System Programs" to '/sbin', '/User Files' to '/home', et cetera.

That wouldn't get rid of the existing names, but it would be simple to
implement as a single nearly-empty package.

I imagine one could also set up a custom configuration of some file
browser such that it would hide displaying the "real" names, and then
ship a sort of micro-distro (installer task, maybe?) which installs the
symlinking package and that file browser as part of its standard UI
setup. It wouldn't be perfect, but it might meet the described want.

Then again, I seriously doubt the result would be remotely worth the
amount of effort which would have to be invested to implement it.

Also, I don't think it's terribly likely that such a package would be
accepted into Debian proper, although one could certainly make use of it
locally if one so desired; it would be unlikely to depend on anything
which changes enough for it to be able to break, so this is one case
where maintaining a local .deb (or even downloading and installing one
created by someone else) probably wouldn't hurt.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232766 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Written by The Wanderer
> Well, if all you want is to be able to have more "newbie-friendly"
> descriptive names of the directories, it might be possible to achieve
> something like that by the simple addition of a collection of symlinks;
> just symlink e.g. "/Configuration" to '/etc', '/Programs' to '/bin',
> "/System Programs" to '/sbin', '/User Files' to '/home', et cetera.
>
> That wouldn't get rid of the existing names, but it would be simple to
> implement as a single nearly-empty package.
>
> I imagine one could also set up a custom configuration of some file
> browser such that it would hide displaying the "real" names, and then
> ship a sort of micro-distro (installer task, maybe?) which installs the
> symlinking package and that file browser as part of its standard UI
> setup. It wouldn't be perfect, but it might meet the described want.

I was thinking about that, but something could go wrong with that:

Written by me.
> >> I was wondering what would happen if some program used filesystem paths
> >> as its input data for some processing task.  He he, yes, changing
status quo
> >> is not easy

Written by Stefan Monnier
> > Here's one source of breakage I encountered a few times because of this
> > /usr merge (which I generally welcome, BTW):
> >
> >     dpkg -S =foo
> >
> > this (using the Zsh shell) should give me the name of the Debian package
> > which provides the command `foo`.  It works well for most commands, but
> > it fails for `ifconfig` because `ifconfig` was actually installed in
> > /sbin/ifconfig (but the /usr merge makes this same /sbin directory
> > available under the name /usr/sbin so Zsh thinks that `ifconfig` comes
> > from `/usr/sbin/ifconfig` whereas `dpkg` doesn't have any record of
> > installing a `/usr/sbin/ifconfig` file).

Written by me
> Yes, before every possible bug derived from that change is corrected,
> you could use some sort path translation program
> that takes paths from the caller program and translates it
> to some path the called program can understand.
> Just thinking.

It could happen again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232768 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-03-10 at 19:31, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:

> Written by The Wanderer
> 
>> Well, if all you want is to be able to have more "newbie-friendly"
>> descriptive names of the directories, it might be possible to
>> achieve something like that by the simple addition of a collection
>> of symlinks; just symlink e.g. "/Configuration" to '/etc',
>> '/Programs' to '/bin', "/System Programs" to '/sbin', '/User Files'
>> to '/home', et cetera.
>> 
>> That wouldn't get rid of the existing names, but it would be simple
>> to implement as a single nearly-empty package.
>> 
>> I imagine one could also set up a custom configuration of some
>> file browser such that it would hide displaying the "real" names,
>> and then ship a sort of micro-distro (installer task, maybe?) which
>> installs the symlinking package and that file browser as part of
>> its standard UI setup. It wouldn't be perfect, but it might meet
>> the described want.
> 
> I was thinking about that, but something could go wrong with that:
> 
> Written by me.
> 
>>> I was wondering what would happen if some program used filesystem
>>> paths as its input data for some processing task. He he, yes,
>>> changing status quo is not easy

I don't see why that would come up in this case.

In the model I described, the original paths which you found confusing
are all still there, and anything which wants to find things under them
can continue to use them.

All this model does is give those paths an additional name each, and
maybe go out of its way to hide the original names from you. Just
because there are new names, and you can't see the old ones when you use
one specific way of looking, doesn't mean that they aren't there or that
other things can't see them.

That would mean that you'd probably still see the original names in e.g.
program error messages - but you could continue to use the new ones when
navigating through the filesystem, and the circumstances in which it
could lead to something breaking would be relatively rare (and maybe
even nonexistent).


That said, I repeat, I don't think the benefit from this would be
remotely worth the effort that implementing it would require.

If you happen to think it would, then you are entirely free to
implement it.

Doing the first part (creating the new names) locally on a per-machine
basis is a trivial matter of setting up a handful of symlinks. Anyone
with much *nix experience could do this casually, if given root access
on the relevant computer.


Doing the second part is a complex and nontrivial matter of A: finding a
file-browser program which can be configured to hide files without
having to rename them and creating a suitable configuration for the
names you don't want to see, B: finding a file-browser program which
can't be configured to do that and modifying it so that either it can or
it just automatically hides them without configuration, or C: writing a
file-browser program with those capabilities, entirely from scratch.

If the type of file-browser program required for option A already
exists, option A could probably be done in a week or less by someone
with enough *nix experience to know how to search out programs and learn
to configure them.

Option B would probably take weeks at least, for someone who already has
skill with programming.

Option C would probably take months at least, for a reasonably expert
programmer.


Doing the third part (the "micro-distro") is probably not as hard as the
second part, but presents an entirely distinct kind of challenge, and I
don't even know how to estimate how long it might take.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232780 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

> I don't see why that would come up in this case.
>
> In the model I described, the original paths which you found confusing
> are all still there, and anything which wants to find things under them
> can continue to use them.
>
> All this model does is give those paths an additional name each, and
> maybe go out of its way to hide the original names from you. Just
> because there are new names, and you can't see the old ones when you use
> one specific way of looking, doesn't mean that they aren't there or that
> other things can't see them.

Oh, now I understand what you mean, instead of doing it
like the merge of /usr, you would make the new paths
and not the old ones to be symbolic links.  Yes, it should not
break anything.  Thanks.

I have one question, does it work without breaking anything
if I mark the old directories with a hidden atribute instead of
some file manager specific configuration?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232802 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-03-10 at 21:22, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:

>> I don't see why that would come up in this case.
>> 
>> In the model I described, the original paths which you found
>> confusing are all still there, and anything which wants to find
>> things under them can continue to use them.
>> 
>> All this model does is give those paths an additional name each,
>> and maybe go out of its way to hide the original names from you.
>> Just because there are new names, and you can't see the old ones
>> when you use one specific way of looking, doesn't mean that they
>> aren't there or that other things can't see them.
> 
> Oh, now I understand what you mean, instead of doing it like the
> merge of /usr, you would make the new paths and not the old ones to
> be symbolic links.  Yes, it should not break anything.  Thanks.
> 
> I have one question, does it work without breaking anything if I mark
> the old directories with a hidden atribute instead of some file
> manager specific configuration?

If that type of mark is possible in your environment, then no, this
shouldn't break anything.

However, as far as I'm aware, there is no non-file-manager-specific
"hidden" attribute for an *nix filesystem. The traditional way to make
most *nix programs treat a file as hidden is to rename the file so that
it starts with a '.' character - and renaming any of these directories
would, of course, bring back in the "existing programs can't find what
they expect" problem.

The need to introduce, or take advantage of, a file-manager-specific
"hidden" attribute is exactly the reason why I think a specialized file
manager for the purpose would probably be needed.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232806 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

> If that type of mark is possible in your environment, then no, this
> shouldn't break anything.
>
> However, as far as I'm aware, there is no non-file-manager-specific
> "hidden" attribute for an *nix filesystem. The traditional way to make
> most *nix programs treat a file as hidden is to rename the file so that
> it starts with a '.' character - and renaming any of these directories
> would, of course, bring back in the "existing programs can't find what
> they expect" problem.
>
> The need to introduce, or take advantage of, a file-manager-specific
> "hidden" attribute is exactly the reason why I think a specialized file
> manager for the purpose would probably be needed.

Oh, I see, that makes sense.  Thanks for your help.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232800 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:03:00PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:

[...]

> Well, if all you want is to be able to have more "newbie-friendly"
> descriptive names of the directories, it might be possible to achieve
> something like that by the simple addition of a collection of symlinks;
> just symlink e.g. "/Configuration" to '/etc', '/Programs' to '/bin',
> "/System Programs" to '/sbin', '/User Files' to '/home', et cetera.

To whomever tries that approach, my advice would be to have a long look
at all the botches common destop environments managed to do while trying
to internationalise directories beneath a user's home.

I mean: those things like "Desktop", which, if you do a German installation
are "Schreibtisch". And those aren't "standard Unix" directories, that means
that little software knows them, ergo they had the chance to start off a
relatively clean slate.

And oh, please: drop those whitespaces off file and directory names. This
makes teaching shell scripting to newbies a really #@%*&$¡~ chore. Unless
you want newbies to not learn scripting [1].

Cheers

[1] The generic "you". You (this time the personal) are the last person
   I would suspect of this!

 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232801 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: 
> 
> To whomever tries that approach, my advice would be to have a long look
> at all the botches common destop environments managed to do while trying
> to internationalise directories beneath a user's home.
> 
> I mean: those things like "Desktop", which, if you do a German installation
> are "Schreibtisch". And those aren't "standard Unix" directories, that means
> that little software knows them, ergo they had the chance to start off a
> relatively clean slate.

The XDG conventions are a good thing to look at.

https://wiki.debian.org/XDGBaseDirectorySpecification

The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to
choose from!

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232809 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:24:25AM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> And oh, please: drop those whitespaces off file and directory names. This
> makes teaching shell scripting to newbies a really #@%*&$¡~ chore. Unless
> you want newbies to not learn scripting [1].
> 
> Cheers
> 
> [1] The generic "you". You (this time the personal) are the last person
>    I would suspect of this!

On the other hand, newbies who fail to learn proper shell scripting
practices go on to write terrible, horrible, bug-ridden shell scripts
that get installed on your[1] computer, and then break.

The notion that "all filenames are alphanumeric plus dots, and maybe
dashes or underscores if you're a rebel" leads to scripts that break
when given the more typical messy filenames that one encounters in
real life.  Sure, it's easy to write those scripts, but they're not
correct.  They're ticking bombs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232812 — Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 07:48:14AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:24:25AM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > And oh, please: drop those whitespaces off file and directory names. This
> > makes teaching shell scripting to newbies a really #@%*&$¡~ chore. Unless
> > you want newbies to not learn scripting [1].
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > [1] The generic "you". You (this time the personal) are the last person
> >    I would suspect of this!
> 
> On the other hand, newbies who fail to learn proper shell scripting
> practices go on to write terrible, horrible, bug-ridden shell scripts
> that get installed on your[1] computer, and then break.

You're right, and then...

I wasn't proposing to ignore the problems with those whitespaces.
Rather to just push the steep part of the ramp a bit further down
the learning path.

I still do one-off scripts without getting every nook and cranny
of quoting right. When I rework scripts for possible consumption
by others, I put much more attention in it.

> The notion that "all filenames are alphanumeric plus dots, and maybe
> dashes or underscores if you're a rebel" leads to scripts that break
> when given the more typical messy filenames that one encounters in
> real life.  Sure, it's easy to write those scripts, but they're not
> correct.  They're ticking bombs.

Definitely. And pages like yours do an invaluable job in helping
people to refine those skills.

But I insist: taking everything into account when starting shell
programming can build up to be an insurmountable wall. Perhaps
I'm wrong, though.

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232815

> And oh, please: drop those whitespaces off file and directory names. This
> makes teaching shell scripting to newbies a really #@%*&$¡~ chore. Unless
> you want newbies to not learn scripting [1].

On the flip side, it teaches good practices, compared to the all too
common scripts using un-quoted $foo which vomits all over your system as
soon as it bumps into a file with a not-so-funny character in it.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web