projectopus.com— Gobo Linux manages to completely remove the UNIX directory structure in their distro! What they've come up with you might find very surprising!
Nov 30, 2006View in Crawl 4
Lol, 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!
Gobo Linux is pretty cool, but the title of the digg itself hath offended me. Installing apps with a decent packager is far easier than installing them in OS X. Lets take a widely used multiplatform application, such as VLC. To install this in a distro with an excellent package manager such as pacman, all i have to do is pop open a terminal and put in "pacman -Sy vlc". Bam! downloads, installs, and I can type "vlc" to run it. To do this on OS X, I have to get to VLC's website, download it, extract the DMG, copy the .app into the applications folder, and then double click to run. Now, which was easier?
I 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 it4 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.
This is a big one. Dual head setups with Xinerama are still a PITA to set up on most distros. This needs to work like Windows and OS X where you just plug and unplug monitors and have a GUI to arrange the displays.I think this file structure is a great idea. IMO Linux should really focus on some real innovation and progress as far as the guts of it are concerned.Configuration files should be kept in some sort of version control repo by default for servers. svn log is your log book.This one is not exactly realistic, but I really believe that one flexible configuration file format should be made the standard. Something like Apple's plist with arrays, dicts, and scalars. You can represent any config with those types. There are efforts at this going on (UniConf) but it's such a tricky problem to tackle. I mean, what OSS project is going to change their configuration for just one OS that it runs on? Not that many I imagine. But from /etc/fstab to /etc/apache2/httpd.conf I think using one code base for all configuration would be sweet.The main reason I like the unified configuration idea is because of the next thing I want to see for Linux (and other *nixes): an object-oriented set of libraries representing a running *nix system. Everything from users and groups in /etc/{passwd,shadow,group} to apache, postfix, and the package manager should be able to be programmed and manipulated with ease, and with no messy work going around in /etc files to configure programs.The only way a super-mega-config system like that will work is if it can work with both old and new configurations simultaneously for a long transition period, updating and reading changes from traditional files in /etc/ and with new files in /etc or /conf or wherever else.A solid init system (at least 2 are in the works), and a few other changes to the core OS and you could have an even better Linux, which is easier to program and maintain, and is more uniform./soapbox ... and before you point fingers, I have started planning and coding the OO library, but it gets messy which brought me to the unified and programatically malleable config system idea, which I found is already in the works but is not being eaten up by everyone (understandably) ... i mean, it really can't rely on anything in /usr to work or it's BS.
The power of open-source is that the participants are spread out over the whole earth and are not directly affiliated. The weakness of open-source is that the participants are spread out over the whole earth and are not directly affiliated.Apple has the power to shape their OS to meet their vision, which they did with NEXT and did very will I have to say. With OSS everyone has their idea of where their project should go, which is fine, but sweeping changes (such as replacing the init system) will not be adopted by all which fragments the group, not good. This filesystem structure is meaningless unless it's widely adopted.But when distos are knitted together with apps from the Apache group, the kernel, gnu, and then autonomous groups of coders like those who manage Xfce, how can you get them to all agree on The One True Config system, or filesystem structure, or whatever the hell it is that should be modernized? Apache is probably the last project that should replace their config files but it's a prominent project that's widely used so I use it as an example.Sorry for all the thinking out loud but these are some things I've been thinking about recently for the future of Linux and OSS.
To sanguinemoon: Thank lord someone else around here realizes the sheer insanity of some of the comments. You get these 16 to 20 year old techno-dweebs who think they are the hottest thing around computers since WoZ, and suddenly they get these delusions that by using Ubuntu for a few months has given them the insight to dictate what the direction of *nix should be.User friendly is one thing, f**king up years of hard, logical work done by the developers who designed *nix is another.Once again, thanks for the breath of fresh, intelligent air, sanguinemoon.
That leads to the question of whether the technology is more superior to human skill.Though it has pretty much no relevance to the topic, since both cases are technology and none really require human skill ;)With this filesystem much will not change, if you need to change a system wide setting then you still have to find the global configuration file... it's just stored in a different place. Most people won't be doing that either though. I really see no advantage in this, more disadvantages.
The big question is does this have automatic dependancy checking and installing like Apt, Gentoo, Pacman etc?The average user won't care where the files are as long as it's easy to install the program. Installing stuff on Debian is easier than eating cake, either type in one simple command or go into a GUI Program, point and click and you're done. If Gobo's solution makes you go out on a hunt to find the packages much like Slackware then I already hate it... what's the point?
I agree that the car analogy was bad. If I were to compare Linux it would be more like a truck - especially my truck. My truck is a big V8 Chevy work truck has rubber mats and no air conditioning. (but did come with a FM/AM cassette Yeaaaa!.). Most Linux distributions are about as raw as my truck compared to Macs and Windows but then again I would never ever think of not having a truck. (Its just has to many uses to list). I treat Linux the same way. Its not as refined as the Other OSes. Just like in the truck world, Linux has Sport trucks and really nice comfortable "lots of features" trucks but they are still trucks. Linux will always be a "work truck" never as refine but one heck of a workhorse OS. There are some people who would never be caught dead driving a Minivan and I guess the same goes with OSes. You always find those die hard users that will never use a Microsoft product ;)
I am not cluelessorMyths and misconceptions about the design of GoboLinux<a class="user" href="http://gobolinux.org/index.php?page=doc/articles/clueless">http://gobolinux.org/index.php?page=doc/articles/clueless</a> "For strict compatibility reasons, however, we have an extra set of symbolic links with the Unix names pointing to the closest GoboLinux equivalents (even making a few concessions in the GoboLinux side of the equation in order to preserve this compatibility). The fact that these are links, and we call them the legacy tree keeps this notion very clear. The work of Lucas Villa Real and Felipe Damasio on GoboHide, the kernel patch for true hidden directories on Linux, further isolates the legacy tree as an isolated accessory." "If we were doing this to attract the Windows users, a structural reorganization would be the last thing we would do. Instead, we would concentrate on making the user interface look like Windows, applying Windows-like themes, moving icons around, perhaps integrating Wine tightly into the distribution, and so on. And that's what Lindows, Lindash, Linspire, or whatever their name is today is doing, not us"PS : For those of you unsure of your linux file structure, try "man hier"
jltbNov 30, 2006Submitter
Lol, 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!
popebadassNov 30, 2006
Gobo Linux is pretty cool, but the title of the digg itself hath offended me. Installing apps with a decent packager is far easier than installing them in OS X. Lets take a widely used multiplatform application, such as VLC. To install this in a distro with an excellent package manager such as pacman, all i have to do is pop open a terminal and put in "pacman -Sy vlc". Bam! downloads, installs, and I can type "vlc" to run it. To do this on OS X, I have to get to VLC's website, download it, extract the DMG, copy the .app into the applications folder, and then double click to run. Now, which was easier?
dukeinlondonNov 30, 2006
I 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 it4 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.
nofxjunkeeNov 30, 2006
This is a big one. Dual head setups with Xinerama are still a PITA to set up on most distros. This needs to work like Windows and OS X where you just plug and unplug monitors and have a GUI to arrange the displays.I think this file structure is a great idea. IMO Linux should really focus on some real innovation and progress as far as the guts of it are concerned.Configuration files should be kept in some sort of version control repo by default for servers. svn log is your log book.This one is not exactly realistic, but I really believe that one flexible configuration file format should be made the standard. Something like Apple's plist with arrays, dicts, and scalars. You can represent any config with those types. There are efforts at this going on (UniConf) but it's such a tricky problem to tackle. I mean, what OSS project is going to change their configuration for just one OS that it runs on? Not that many I imagine. But from /etc/fstab to /etc/apache2/httpd.conf I think using one code base for all configuration would be sweet.The main reason I like the unified configuration idea is because of the next thing I want to see for Linux (and other *nixes): an object-oriented set of libraries representing a running *nix system. Everything from users and groups in /etc/{passwd,shadow,group} to apache, postfix, and the package manager should be able to be programmed and manipulated with ease, and with no messy work going around in /etc files to configure programs.The only way a super-mega-config system like that will work is if it can work with both old and new configurations simultaneously for a long transition period, updating and reading changes from traditional files in /etc/ and with new files in /etc or /conf or wherever else.A solid init system (at least 2 are in the works), and a few other changes to the core OS and you could have an even better Linux, which is easier to program and maintain, and is more uniform./soapbox ... and before you point fingers, I have started planning and coding the OO library, but it gets messy which brought me to the unified and programatically malleable config system idea, which I found is already in the works but is not being eaten up by everyone (understandably) ... i mean, it really can't rely on anything in /usr to work or it's BS.
Closed AccountNov 30, 2006
Uh this is yet another dupe, the original was here: <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/linux_unix/GoboLinux_Linux_without_usr_lib_whatever">http://digg.com/linux_unix/GoboLinux_Linux_without_usr_lib_whatever</a>
nofxjunkeeNov 30, 2006
The power of open-source is that the participants are spread out over the whole earth and are not directly affiliated. The weakness of open-source is that the participants are spread out over the whole earth and are not directly affiliated.Apple has the power to shape their OS to meet their vision, which they did with NEXT and did very will I have to say. With OSS everyone has their idea of where their project should go, which is fine, but sweeping changes (such as replacing the init system) will not be adopted by all which fragments the group, not good. This filesystem structure is meaningless unless it's widely adopted.But when distos are knitted together with apps from the Apache group, the kernel, gnu, and then autonomous groups of coders like those who manage Xfce, how can you get them to all agree on The One True Config system, or filesystem structure, or whatever the hell it is that should be modernized? Apache is probably the last project that should replace their config files but it's a prominent project that's widely used so I use it as an example.Sorry for all the thinking out loud but these are some things I've been thinking about recently for the future of Linux and OSS.
debian_Dec 1, 2006
To sanguinemoon: Thank lord someone else around here realizes the sheer insanity of some of the comments. You get these 16 to 20 year old techno-dweebs who think they are the hottest thing around computers since WoZ, and suddenly they get these delusions that by using Ubuntu for a few months has given them the insight to dictate what the direction of *nix should be.User friendly is one thing, f**king up years of hard, logical work done by the developers who designed *nix is another.Once again, thanks for the breath of fresh, intelligent air, sanguinemoon.
xilonDec 1, 2006
That leads to the question of whether the technology is more superior to human skill.Though it has pretty much no relevance to the topic, since both cases are technology and none really require human skill ;)With this filesystem much will not change, if you need to change a system wide setting then you still have to find the global configuration file... it's just stored in a different place. Most people won't be doing that either though. I really see no advantage in this, more disadvantages.
xilonDec 1, 2006
The big question is does this have automatic dependancy checking and installing like Apt, Gentoo, Pacman etc?The average user won't care where the files are as long as it's easy to install the program. Installing stuff on Debian is easier than eating cake, either type in one simple command or go into a GUI Program, point and click and you're done. If Gobo's solution makes you go out on a hunt to find the packages much like Slackware then I already hate it... what's the point?
Closed AccountDec 2, 2006
What do you mean the PBI will be fixed in 1.3? Who did this statement? The PBI works very well actually :)<a class="user" href="http://docs.pcbsd.org/guide/chap4.1.html">http://docs.pcbsd.org/guide/chap4.1.html</a>
synthespianDec 2, 2006
PC-BSD has "PBI" packages. This is just the same as a Windows install. Just click on a package and it installs.PC-BSD is based (not a fork) on FreeBSD Unix. <a class="user" href="http://www.pcbsd.org/">http://www.pcbsd.org/</a> FreeBSD is on par with Linux, feature-wise. In fact, I dumped Debian for Ubuntu, and then dumped ubuntu for FreeBSD (I use FreeBSD, but that's because there was PC-BSD at the time - anyways, it's not a fork).It was considered by OSWeekly.com "The Most Beginner Friendly OS". See <a class="user" href="http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2287&Itemid=449">http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2287&Itemid=449</a>They had this to say: "if this OS was to come pre-installed, I see this as becoming a spectacular alternative to Windows for any Windows user. Why? Because the software management is so familiar for any semi-experienced Windows user. "There's a lot of software, already, but not quite as many as the > 14,000 FreeBSD ports. If the user wants, he can install the ports tree. "Ports" is one of the system the BSDs use to install third-party software. For PC-BSD's software repository:<a class="user" href="http://www.pbidir.com/">http://www.pbidir.com/</a>Another feature potential migrating users might consider is that you can buy software that allows you to install Windows inside a PC-BSD (or FreeBSD), f you need any specific Windows-only software. It's called Win4BSD, and it is a mere $49.99.<a class="user" href="http://www.win4bsd.com/content/">http://www.win4bsd.com/content/</a>For Office and *full* Excel compatibility (except Ex cell software like the solver), you can install SoftMaker ($69.95)<a class="user" href="http://www.softmaker.com/english/ofl_en.htm">http://www.softmaker.com/english/ofl_en.htm</a>IMHO, this is probably the best choice for those people who want to migrate from Windows to an open source OS.
dragonopolisDec 3, 2006
I agree that the car analogy was bad. If I were to compare Linux it would be more like a truck - especially my truck. My truck is a big V8 Chevy work truck has rubber mats and no air conditioning. (but did come with a FM/AM cassette Yeaaaa!.). Most Linux distributions are about as raw as my truck compared to Macs and Windows but then again I would never ever think of not having a truck. (Its just has to many uses to list). I treat Linux the same way. Its not as refined as the Other OSes. Just like in the truck world, Linux has Sport trucks and really nice comfortable "lots of features" trucks but they are still trucks. Linux will always be a "work truck" never as refine but one heck of a workhorse OS. There are some people who would never be caught dead driving a Minivan and I guess the same goes with OSes. You always find those die hard users that will never use a Microsoft product ;)
xicolocoMar 21, 2007
I am not cluelessorMyths and misconceptions about the design of GoboLinux<a class="user" href="http://gobolinux.org/index.php?page=doc/articles/clueless">http://gobolinux.org/index.php?page=doc/articles/clueless</a> "For strict compatibility reasons, however, we have an extra set of symbolic links with the Unix names pointing to the closest GoboLinux equivalents (even making a few concessions in the GoboLinux side of the equation in order to preserve this compatibility). The fact that these are links, and we call them the legacy tree keeps this notion very clear. The work of Lucas Villa Real and Felipe Damasio on GoboHide, the kernel patch for true hidden directories on Linux, further isolates the legacy tree as an isolated accessory." "If we were doing this to attract the Windows users, a structural reorganization would be the last thing we would do. Instead, we would concentrate on making the user interface look like Windows, applying Windows-like themes, moving icons around, perhaps integrating Wine tightly into the distribution, and so on. And that's what Lindows, Lindash, Linspire, or whatever their name is today is doing, not us"PS : For those of you unsure of your linux file structure, try "man hier"