What is Digg?109 Comments
- Shutter, on 10/12/2007, -7/+47It is this kind of thinking that *could* propel Linux into the mainstream.
Look at Apple 7 years ago -- Apple PCs were dying...but they were resurrected by an operating system that made things SIMPLE TO USE. Linux just needs to combine the *ability* to do really technical and customizable things with the concept of *simplicity*.
Beryl is absolutely necessary for desktop linux.
Programs should have an automated installer.
Display devices should be able to be reconfigured on the fly, without restarting X or editing config files.
Everything should be doable in a GUI.
If not, Linux will just be a niche market forever and I'll have to become an Apple fanboy. I want to jump off the Microsoft ship, but I can't do it if there's nothing around the boat. - JLTB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Lol, so very true. But still, if this work could be merged into a distro with lots of steam behind it (say Ubuntu) Linux would be all the better for it.
Imagine being able to copy an app from your /Programs folder, paste it on your friends machine and they have the program installed. That easy! - vfortier, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27lets just hope that they merge that somewhere in the future with Ubuntu... this would make it easy to install new software... not that it is difficult right now but easier...
- BigBadger, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30I'm completely behind linux implementing this, the only reason it won't take off any time soon, if at all, is the die-hard linux wonks will bitch and moan if any major distro even THINKS about this sort of format.
Look at how loudly they're bitching about non-proprietary drivers being proposed in Fiesty. : P - exsst, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25Sadly this won't be in ubuntu, but I quote BBSeXoDuS
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=297429&page=16&highlight=gobo
"First, perl modules aren't like C headers, they are libraries, and it's up to perl packagers where to put them.
The reason C headers are in /usr/include is that the BASIC system applications and libraries are done in C, and without C you can't boot (not without headers but withou the libs) that's why the basic C files are kept always in the same place because changing them would break backwards compatability with the most basic software like the linux kernel. If you change it in ubuntu that means the linux kernel will compile in every distro except for ubuntu, not very nice.
As for the rest of you all, STOP the discussions about the filesystem, it won't happen no matter how much time you waste making new threads about it, it's getting tiresome already. Ubuntu is not an Operating System, it's a GNU/Linux distribution and as such it will stick to the Linux way of doing things just like any other distro that wants to stay compliant will. If ubuntu would to do a wild change like that basic stuff like the linux kernel won't even compile unless you got an ubuntu version, and that's not very nice, means more work for software developers or ubuntu packagers because every damn application will need to be updated. Not to mention that any Linux books won't stick, or many Linux HOWTOs wont work anymore.
The filesystem will stay as it is, if you prefer another one then pick another OS, Linux is not what you are looking for.
I do agree on the idea that the filesystem is difficult for average Joe, but the way you are attacking the problem is wrong, we shouldn't change the filesystem, we should make Joe have no need to look at the filesystem, that's where the weakest point is. We should bring the GUI to a point where the filesystem will only be accessed by geeks and professionals, and for them the filesystem is actually better as it is. If I'm going to do things the manual way over ssh I rather type the less amount of characters, and that's where /etc comes handy.
So, knock if off kids, spend the time on brainstorming something that is useful, like making all kind of admin applications for managing basic stuff for Joe."
He has a good point. - LrdEclpse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17This already exists in Ubuntu, and Red Hat, and SuSE, and Tru64, and Solaris, and any other of the *NIX grouped systems. GoboLinux is using a time honored tradition of symlinking files. Gobo has taken every directory that could possibly be used for applications on traditional platforms and symlinked them all to "/Programs." You want to keep your current system, but use the "/Programs" type central directory. Go ahead, start symlinking.
Sure, it will take some admin work. Gobo is the only distro to do it out of the starting gate. But it's perfectly capable of being used on any and all systems. The part that Gobo is doing differently is loading a Kernel module to hide the rest of the file structure. You don't see any of the symlinks without removing the module, but they are still there. The full *NIX file structure is alive, well and intact. - Shigun, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20@brian1001001 "But package managers and better desktops and simpler file structures... "
Package Managers: Check
Better Desktops: Check
Simpler File Structures: No
You make the statement that "Windows and OSX both have removed the need to be a computer expert or even really know what you're doing." This also means that they have eliminated the real need to do anything with the file structure. Windows users have their pretty little "My Documents" folder. The rest Windows normally hides by default, and just creates shortcuts on the desktop/in the start menu. OSX users have their "Home" folder, with applications being dragged into the Applications folder. The actual files and all of the applications? Hidden. And Linux users have their "Home" folder as well.
A simpler file structure is not needed, and completely reworking it is not needed either. What is needed, however, is for people to stop complaining about the file structure, and start working on ways to eliminate the need for average users to go through it. - exsst, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Agreed. innovation will never stop, especially if the work environment you're in is open source~linux.
- NTolerance, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15The whole point of this is to NOT have to read a book to install software.
- JLTB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Check out their FAQ page here --> http://www.gobolinux.org/index.php?page=at_a_glance
Note: I am not affiliated with this project in any way. I just stumbled across it today. - zugu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18"As for the rest of you all, STOP the discussions about the filesystem, it won't happen no matter how much time you waste making new threads about it, it's getting tiresome already. Ubuntu is not an Operating System, it's a GNU/Linux distribution and as such it will stick to the Linux way of doing things just like any other distro that wants to stay compliant will. If ubuntu would to do a wild change like that basic stuff like the linux kernel won't even compile unless you got an ubuntu version, and that's not very nice, means more work for software developers or ubuntu packagers because every damn application will need to be updated. Not to mention that any Linux books won't stick, or many Linux HOWTOs wont work anymore."
Guess what, smart head: Gobo Linux has the same filesystem as any other distro, EXCEPT THEY ARE USING LINKS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO LOOK AT. All the geeky directories like /lib, /etc, /opt or /bin are hidden, and instead there are human directories like Programs or Documents.
"The filesystem will stay as it is, if you prefer another one then pick another OS, Linux is not what you are looking for." It seems to me you think that Gobo Linux is Windows or OSX.
"...the linux kernel won't even compile..." - Guess what, dumb head, no average user gives a ***** about compiling kernels!
"Not to mention that any Linux books won't stick, or many Linux HOWTOs wont work anymore" - believe me, in the purest Murphyan habit, they NEVER work. People messed around so much with GNU/Linux, it is FOOBAR. - tuxracer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12For all those who don't fully RTFA, make sure you see this comment by LrdEclpse:
"Actually, they do not ditch the standard UNIX directory structure at all. It exists in it's entirety. They use a very common *NIX command to create symlinks so that all directories point to a couple of "common" locations. I've been doing this for years now, most UNIX/Linux users do the same type of thing. Though, not quite to this extreme.
What GoboLinux does different, though, is they have a Kernel module that is installed by default that hides the main directory structure. Actually, that part is similar to Apple as well. The same UNIX directory structure lives on in OS X, but is hidden by default. You have to explicitily tell the OS you want to see the full directory structure before you can see how all the symlinks work around the system.
*NIX admins love symlinks." - Kam3k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12> OSX
Users
Applications
System
Its just plain logical. - brian1001001, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15@Mathiasdm: I gotta tell you, the "Users need to know more about their computer argument", doesn't fly anymore.
Windows and OSX both have removed the need to be a computer expert or even really know what you're doing. Most people want that/need that, and if Linux is ever going to compete with these OSes for widespread adoption, it needs to be there. My mom, say, doesn't know from "apt-get", and she's not about to start. But package managers and better desktops and simpler file structures...
As it stands today, there's no _way_ I'm giving my mother a Linux box yet. It's gotten WAY better, and I figure that each of these steps brings it closer to the time I can finally start recommending Linux to people who don't do computers. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"I personally hate the Linux File System because I'm too lazy to actually sit down and figure it out."
Lots of philosophical questions embedded in this comment.
- Why do users "hate" the Linux File System? Could it be because it makes no effort to relate to the user from his perspective?
- Why does it take so much effort to "figure it out"? Should the user have to figure out the developer's mindset or vice versa?
- Who is really the "lazy" one here --- the user or the developer? - JEmerson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11It's easy only because you have a small army of people, in effect, installing the application for you. When it works, it's great. When it doesn't, you're left staring at a feature set a few iterations out of date compared to the windows and osx releases because the package maintainer finally got a girlfriend.
- diggeasytiger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13How is this a good thing? Installing applications on Linux is already easier by an unmentionable factor on, say Debian et al. via apt. It is an insanely good tool. The unix directory structure is simpler and more flexible than any known alternative.
There are perfectly good reasons why things are the way they are, and they don't need to change to look more like windows for the sake of it. - bettermentflux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Have to agree, this has the potential to move Linux forward another step. Gobo has created a workaround to a common stumbling block. I'd love to see this approach adopted by a top-tier distribution.
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ugh, blogspam
http://www.gobolinux.org - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6UNIX will never improve. Too many fat, hairy, greasy EMACS nerds from the '70s are invested in its secret languages of awk, troff, TeX, csh, etc. Obviously anyone wanting change is too stupid to understand that a system slapped together as a hobby over about 10 years by a gaggle of arrogant and too-clever-by-half sysadmins is the ne plus ultra of operating systems and is perfect in every way, that he who questions the UNIX way only betrays his ignorance thereof, and shall not pass. Ni!
I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that structured programming had been accepted by the time UNIX was invented. Objects? I've got a struct and a bunch of #DEFINEs right here! - Majin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6SWEET XD a linux distro with a file structure discernible by humans aswel
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5OS X doesn't do the Symlink trick though, and things are only hidden from users in the finder, if you use a terminal all the usual suspects from the Unix world are there.
- Xilon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@donsmith: A linux Distribution usually has NOTHING to do with the actual GUI, at most they modify the existing DEs like KDE, Gnome, XFCE etc.
- whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Things are NOT Fine as they are, there are lots of people curious about Linux, but it's unforgiving learning curve makes it unattractive to casual user.
When it comes to users most people seem to think there are two kinds.
Those who just want surf the web and listen to Mp3s, and those who spend massive amount of time learning the inns and out of an OS.
But the truth is, most people are a little computer literate. Right in the middle.
And they don't mind looking for a driver or two if the core system is working, As is, they are able to get on the internet, graphics are displayed and the pointer moves.
But in some cases*nix is extreme, sometimes none of these core systems will work, and users will be confronted with a prompt, and casual users are not comfortable with that, or don't have the documentation just lying around to get x working again, or get their modem to work.
This is a complaint that has been going on for how long now? Over a decade?
What's taking so long?
Does not the Linux community want people to use it?
What's the point in driving a car if you have to refine the fuel yourself.
Free is not enough. - DrSkrud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I've used GoboLinux for a while, and it *is* a pretty clever system. But the ease wears off once you need to install something that's not in their repository. While the build tools they give you (like "Compile") work pretty well most of the time, there are occasionally problems with lost/overriding symlinks and other things.
I don't know if it's changed since then, but I remember that while I was using it I often found myself getting into messes with the file system, as oppose to having it work to my benefit.
I'm using Ubuntu now. :) - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"There are perfectly good reasons why things are the way they are, and they don't need to change to look more like windows for the sake of it."
If that's all there is to it, changing to look more like Windows, then I would agree. But is it not possible that having all program files grouped together could actually be more logical?
"Reasonable" depends on your perspective. What looks "reasonable" and logical to a programmer is not necessarily the most reasonable from the user's perspective. It all comes down to who you prefer to accommodate --- the user or the programmer? - zhulien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I still don't get why you have to install the apps - why not just let me copy them where I want and run them from where I want - like in AmigaOS (no, you don't need to use the installer if you don't want) or Amstrad CPC, or Commodore 64 etc... installers are for dumb OSs.
- jownz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Mathiasdm
I have no idea why your comment got buried. I totally agree with you! When I was learning Linux 10 years ago, I bought a couple books and RTFM like it was going out of style. I miss the days when Linux was "the hacker's operating system."
My biggest beef with the dir structure is the Capitalization. I Mean C'mon, Just Try To Tell Me It Isn't Annoying To Type Like This.
Remember kiddies; man is your friend and everything is possible in Linux. - mxcl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I have to agree. Generally the people clamoring for filesystem changes don't understand the issues. Definately Gobo's way is nice and would be useful, but it breaks a lot of things. A lot of a lot of things. Idealism isn't practical.
Although I want to learn more about Gobo's layout and their solutions to the inevitable problems. Links anyone? - tmilam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4....and they are even still FSH compliant. I read the faq and Gobolinux hides the traditional unix paths with a kernel module that makes them transparent. Seems very bizarre, but I think they are succeeding in what they're trying to accomplish.
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@mumbat, you might be missing some fonts. It looks fine. See the stylesheet.
- Bleach00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.duggmirror.com
- ApeInago, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3whath happens if it isn't in the repository?
- mikedoth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It makes sense to have all the dependencies in one directory. This allows the program to be moved and updated without harm to other applications. I cannot see why anyone wouldn't want this.
- thlom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4A regular user only have to see his home-directory. Where binaries are hidden in the file system shouldn't concern him, they should pop-up in the menu when he installs them...
- Kazrog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Gobo is an important step for the Linux community, but it's really somewhat akin to Microsoft adding the "Program Manager" (which later became the start menu) to Windows. Hide the clutter, put in a bunch of shortcuts, symlinks, aliases, or whatever you want to call them (same concept.)
What I like about OS X is that it actually DOES store the Applications in the /Applications folder. Sure, there's hidden folders on the boot drive for /bin and /var and all that garbage, but those are primarily used for the Darwin BSD command line, and compatibility with X11 and BSD apps. There's no reason why Linux shouldn't strive for the same goal - littering files all over the hard drive is evil. Hopefully Gobo is a sign that plenty of tech-savvy people are fed up with all of these disorganized Linux distros (I know I've been very frustrated with all of them including Ubuntu.) - surgen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@jownz
You hit the nail on the head as far as my concerns about this file system structure goes. If I were to use this, I would probably have a bit of an issue with the first letter uppercase at first. - democracysucks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I tried installing Gobolinux last week to give it a shot. Unfortunately, squashfs apparently is incompatible with hyper-threading.
So, if any of you are running processors with HT, be sure to go into your BIOS and turn it off before you try installing!
That said, it's pretty easy to use, and you can write your own recipes (basically install scripts) for quite a few programs. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If you aren't the type of person that wants to devote that much time to it, you shouldn't drive that model."
Which is exactly where we are today --- most people follow your advice and choose a different model. - mxcl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4JQP123, that's a fantastically good point, and quote. I agree entirely :)
It's an unfortunate thing about Linux, without binary compatibility, it was easy for divergent packaging methods and standards to evolve, and now we have a mess. - subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They say the PBI will be fixed in 1.3......we shall see.
- Budman21901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I totally converted to Ubuntu with no XP partition about 2 months ago. I am no genius at Linux or computers at all. I got around great on windows, but on Linux in general i am new. I learned apt-get, and a lot of other stuff to get me around good on Linux. Linux does not need another packaging system to make it easy. Linux needs a uniformed system of packaging that all distros agree on, and use. I don't think people will mind learning a little about a package manager if they only have to learn it once. Going to download sites, and seeing 5 different types of downloads gets confusing to a newbie and looks more difficult then it is. Specially if they download the wrong one.
There are 2 things all distros should agree on:
1. Package manager.
2. Directory structure.
Other then that distros can do what they wish. This would allow all newbies to know the basics of the system regardless of distro. It would also allow developers such as mplayer to make packages like codecs that are installed in a uniformed directory since all distros used the same directory structure.
I am going out on a limb here because i am a Linux newbie. I hope this opinion is not retarded. - democracysucks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2These people who keep insisting command line installs are easier than downloading it off a website are just nuts.
Command line is fine as long as you want the version of the software included in the repositories and have no dependency issues.
Wanna install Stepmania? Can't. Gaim 2.0.0 Beta 5? Can't. See, these are fairly common programs that people want, yet simple command line methods won't get them for you. However, you can ALWAYS go to the website and download the program, either in package or source form.
Plus, by have all the program files in one folder, it's easy to backup individual programs, or even everything on your system. - intangible, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Everyone is missing the biggest strength of the directory structure, and that is the capability to have multiple versions of the same application installed... that makes it wonderful.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"It's an unfortunate thing about Linux, without binary compatibility ..."
This was a problem with Unix long before Linux was even born. The Open Source answer was simple --- source code availability. Unfortunately, source code only made incompatible systems easier to create ... and now we have a mess. The Free Standards Group is trying to introduce some semblance of control after the fact but it's like herding cats at this point. - jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well played, sir.
- radio1mike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think this would be a good option on a Linux distro. The problem with Linux is you essentially have to be an IT professional to learn it. Now this certainly ok, if you have some (maybe a lot) time and the inclination. Let's say like I did in my teens and 20's. But if you are not in IT or a CS graduate and you have other things (work and a family) to do, your time to learn is limited. This is especially true if your using the distro for something specific like a PVR.
- dukeinlondon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I do agree, but command line is pushing it a bit. When I got a Mac after years of Linux, I was (for a very short time) a bit puzzled by the install procedure. But Windows and MacOSX ways fit better with the way people usually get to know about software packages:
1 they find hear about it,
2 go to the application website,
3 decide to install it
4 pick up the package
5 install it.
The problem with the Linux way is that it usually break between 3 and 4. Newbies look for the package on the site, find a tgz and an rpm for fedora and then decide that linux is rubbish.
distros should at least have agreed on a standard way of kicking off package managers from a link on the page. But distros can't agree on anything. And that's why linux can't get over it's old problems. -
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is