That's true, but you will have this problem with any OS. What if something breaks and the user cannot use the tools that they are used to? Most people cannot even wrap their heads around the basic config tools in windows. I think the only solution to this is to educate people about how their computers work. The problem is that most people want to use the computer as a tool, and like a car, take it to a mechanic when it breaks. The good thing about linux is at least you have the option of going into the console if X breaks. Unlike some OS (I won't name it again) which will just sit their and if it feels like it gives you an error that is only decode-able by a Microsoft employee or a Nazi code breaker.
Jesse On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 22:39, b-r-i-a-n - wrote: > I can buy that. My only argument there is what if XWindows goes down? Then > they have a need to at least have some understanding (either that or know an > expert). > > > - Brian - > > >From: Jesse Kline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Should the unix fs be hidden from desktop users? > >Date: 27 Nov 2002 22:29:33 -0700 > > > >I can understand why new users would be confused with the fs layout. > >Hell I was confused at first myself. However, if you have good GUI tools > >to change all of the settings on your system, then people will not need > >to know that the config files are in /etc or how they are structured. > > > >Jesse > > > >On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 21:22, b-r-i-a-n - wrote: > > > Well I respect your opinions. You raise some good points, but I can't > >say > > > that I agree with all of them. Anyway, you do make a convincing > >argument > > > against the config file size if my approach were to be taken. I think > >if > > > all the config files were layed out a little bit more cleanly though > >(i.e. > > > INI type style) that the size of the file becomes a little bit more > >trivial. > > > After all, lets not forget that you can search using VI. :-) If > >standard > > > formats were followed then it would be pretty easy to perform searches. > > > > > > The combining of config files though is just an idea of a way to try to > >make > > > the file system a little less cluttered. I understand the current > >layout of > > > the file system myself, but I have alot of newbie friends that are > >having a > > > very hard time wrapping their heads around it. > > > > > > Someone suggested the idea before of having all like config files in > >their > > > own directories. I tend to like this idea as well, and I have noticed > >in > > > newer distributions that this is starting to be done alot more, which is > > > good. > > > > > > I think the LSB is a good idea, but it definatly does need to be more > > > clearly defined. > > > > > > Anyway, as I say, you make some good points. :-) > > > > > > - Brian H. - > > > > > > > > > >From: "Aaron J. Seigo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Should the unix fs be hidden from desktop > >users? > > > >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:31:12 -0700 > > > > > > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > >Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > >On Wednesday 27 November 2002 11:40, b-r-i-a-n - wrote: > > > > > Honestly, I'm surprised if you don't think the file system is > >cluttered. > > > > > > > >colour yourself surprised then. ;-) > > > > > > > > > Have you taken a look in /etc or /usr/bin lately? > > > > > > > >yes. and i even understand why it's like that. > > > > > > > > > The file system is just one aspect of the evolution of Linux. I was > > > >just > > > > > indicating that I personally thought that was one area that could be > > > >worked > > > > > on. I was also trying to explain that I felt that before "hiding" > >the > > > >file > > > > > system it should be cleaned up. > > > > > > > >implicit assumption: it needs cleaning up becaues it doesn't serve any > > > >useful > > > >purpose in its current state. > > > > > > > >that's an assumption i can't agree with. it is useful and can and is > >made > > > >accessable to users through appropriate representation and access. and > >i'm > > > >not talking only about GUIs either, but things like tab completion and > > > >$PATH. > > > > > > > > > The file system is anything but perfect in its current state. I'm > >not > > > > > > > >again, i'm left asking: why? what exactly is wrong with it? > > > > > > > >you say that there are too many items in /usr/bin, for example. this > >has > > > >decided benefits, such as limited paths needed and common locations for > > > >binaries which makes administration, compatibility and auditing easier. > >we > > > >have .desktop files and automcompletion to make such things more > >accessable > > > >to average users. > > > > > > > >you say that there aren't enough standards. mark already has pointed > >out > > > >that > > > >it isn't really for lack of standards, but for lack of applications > > > >following > > > >them. > > > > > > > >i'd sooner see people lobbying the XFree86 devels to clean up their act > > > >than > > > >the FHS people to change that standard. > > > > > > > > > As far as how it would be decluttered... Well for starters config > >files > > > > > under /etc should follow a more standard format and be combined > >where > > > > > possible for like services. > > > > > > > >yes, it would be nice if the file FORMATs were more similar. > >unfortunately, > > > >there is too much legacy code around and too many independant > >developers > > > >for > > > >that to be an achievable goal any time soon. over time this will > >improve, > > > >however. things are converging; more apps are moving to > >bind/apache-like, > > > >XML > > > >based or INI style configs. there are fewer and fewer oddball configs > >out > > > >there. > > > > > > > >but this really has nothing to do with the FS layout, right? > > > > > > > > > I shouldn't have to go under /etc/X11, for > > > > > example, and find a million config files just to make one little > >change > > > >to > > > > > XWindows. > > > > > > > >X, as mark pointed out, is an abomination. it is old, old software > >(which > > > >isn't all bad, since it is becoming quite mature and well developed) > >and so > > > >sports much legacy cruft. > > > > > > > >one solution is to make it so you don't have to hand tweak those files > > > >unless > > > >you know what you are doing. the X RandR extension along with other > >such > > > >related developments will make you (and me and probably millions of > >others) > > > >quite happy in this regard. =) > > > > > > > > > I get annoyed having to sit there waiting for grep to look > > > > > through every single file, just to find the file you need to edit. > > > > > > > >that's why we usually name the file after the program it configures! > > > >/etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf ... /etc/inetd.conf ... /etc/logrotate.conf > >.. > > > >/etc/passwd ... /etc/groups ... > > > > > > > >the services that tend to be the biggest pains in the ass (e.g. X) tend > >to > > > >be > > > >old school apps with a lot of unfortunate history and baggage around > >them. > > > > > > > > > At > > > > > least if like services used a single config file you would know for > >sure > > > > > what settings are in what file. > > > > > > > >and then end up with gigantic files with fragile internal divisions, > > > >problems > > > >with package ownership, greater chances of namespace collisions, etc. > > > > > > > >contrary to popular opinion, programmers tend to have IQ's above 80 and > >can > > > >even be creative when pushed. they don't tend to make random decisions > >that > > > >make no sense whatsoever, especially when using their free time to do > >so. > > > > > > > >contrary to popular opinion, system administrators don't like making > >their > > > >life more difficult by creating config systems that are difficult to > > > >navigate > > > >or manage. > > > > > > > >it's amazing how wrong popular opinion can be ;-) > > > > > > > > > Often between distributions they create > > > > > their own special config files to do various things. I see this as > > > >adding > > > > > to clutter and confusion. > > > > > > > >couldn't agree more here. > > > > > > > ><mantra>LSB, FHS</mantra> > > > > > > > > > Here is a day-to-day benifit. I have to sit there for close to a > >half > > > >an > > > > > hour on an older machine waiting for a bloody directory listing to > > > > > finnish(try doing this in /usr/bin). > > > > > > > >jeebus. what are you running, a 386 w/4MB of RAM with /usr on a fat > > > >formatted > > > >floppy? i have 868 items in /user/bin on my PII 400 here on an ext2 fs > >and > > > >it > > > >takes just .23 seconds to list it's contents, .83 if i ls -l (mostly > >due to > > > >the slowness of my terminal) > > > > > > > > > I think it is very evident that > > > > > something is wrong with the file system when that is the case. The > >day > > > > > that isn't the case, yes I would see that as a real day-to-day > >benifit. > > > > > > > >why, because you often list /usr/bin? > > > > > > > >- -- > > > >Aaron J. Seigo > > > >GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 > > > > > > > >"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" > > > > - Albert Einstein > > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > >Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) > > > > > > > >iD8DBQE95X/w1rcusafx20MRAl1iAKCQdpfQ6HuDBHlrCb7/iGeIjkzY3wCeNFaa > > > >0NuNxI8ZOgoQeIOhkfX8gLc= > > > >=2d6J > > > >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > > > > ><< signature.asc >> > > > _________________________________________________________________ > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
