LWN: Comments on "GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy"

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

talex — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:18:39 +0000

I wonder if GoboLinux would be willing to export their collection of programs via Zero Install. They seem to be using a similar heirarchy (Apps/SomeApp/Version/etc), and that would allow everyone to use these applications without having to install a completely new distribution...

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

ahilliard — Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:54:23 +0000

That sort of misses the point - whether or not you have the source, there's going to be trouble if the directories are named 'programs' 'programmes' and 'sendefolgen' (and that's only European languages).

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

Cato — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:18:32 +0000

bash at least solves the tab-completion issue - it does case-insensitive completion (in fact the GNU readline library does this for bash). Just put the following in ~/.inputrc and restart bash:

set completion-ignore-case On

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

gkarabin — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:20:16 +0000

Sounds interesting, although widespread adoption seems to be a tough logistical problem. I'd prefer to see lowercased names for the directories. Pressing "shift" should be avoided whenever possible, IMHO. ;) I can live with longer-than-TLA names with tab completion.

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

Ross — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:34:29 +0000

I also dislike "etc". But I do like the consistancy of using 3 letters and
only lowercase. I think a better choice would have been "cfg". And I
agree about "usr". Something like "sys" would have been a nicer name.

But oh well, it's not bad enough to warrant such a large change. And the
Gobo names will also be disliked by some. I really didn't like the
arrangement of the "System" folder nor did I appreciate the mixing of
non-chaning files like binaries and configuration files in a single
"Programs" directory. One nice thing about /usr is that there is really
no need to modify anything in it. You don't need to back it up because it
should consist of files extracted from packages.

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

dbrandon — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:49:58 +0000

And the nice thing about OS X is that this hierarchy extends down to the user and up to the
network. They call them "Domains" and have User, Local, Network and System. So, /Library
is just the local domain. There's also ~/Library (User), /Network/Library (Network) and /
System/Library (System). A properly behaved program will look at all of these for a
resource. The search order is User, Local, Network, System. (See Inside Mac OS X, System
Overview chapter 9 for details.)

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

Duncan — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:31:55 +0000

All I can say is "YUCK!!"

I'm a reformed MSWormOS/MSDOS user myself, but recently upgraded my
system to AMD64 (running Mdk 9.2 RC, updated regularly, FWIW), and shortly
thereafter had my main hard drive go south on me. I REALLY discovered the
beauty and simplicity of the traditional *ix file system at that point, and now
DEFINITELY appreciate it.

Unlike MSWormOS, which unfortunately mixes applications and per-installation
settings and customizations in a confusing hodge-podge nearly impossible to sort
out for backup purposes, the traditional Linux (Unix) organization is simple and
straightforward to backup -- AND to restore, when necessary. Back up /etc,
/usr/local, and /home, plus the normally /var stuff like mail spools, and any
installation specific stuff like the /mnt/user/news and /mnt/user/mm (multi-media)
(on a desktop, obviously, servers would have server data to backup instead), plus
any proprietary/custom installs on /opt, and you've effectively backed up the
whole system, since its easy enough to reinstall install the base system and
distribution binaries and files off the install CDs.

Since functional data such as mail and server data, and personal stuff such as
/home and multi-media, wherever that's located on a particular desktop system
installation, should be backed up regularly on their own, that leaves only /etc and
/usr/local (plus anything proprietary on /opt or wherever) for system backups,
and one should be able to fit multiple blindly-copy-the-entire-subdir tree system
backups on a single 10 cent CD. Here, /etc and /usr/local together run about
33MB, so I can easily do a quarter's worth of weekly system config backups to a
CD. Make that a pair of CDs for data reliability reasons, and it's six months
worth of system backup data on a pair of CDs. Can't beat the ease and
simplicity of that!

Or, simply backup to a second hard drive, with partitions not normally mounted
except for backup, and mounted read-only for reference or restore operations.

Same thing, tho. It's far simpler to back up a traditionally laid out Linux system,
than an MSWormOS system with data and binaries combined, and restoring is
equally simple. Gobo Linux appears to be taking that back to the hodge-podge
nightmare of MSWormOS. As I said, YUCK! It's DEFINITELY not for me!

Duncan

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

xorbe — Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:04:15 +0000

If you only had access to the source...

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

tsinclai — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:25:11 +0000

I was just about to mention that!

On OS X, for those unfamiliar:

/Applications - default directory for apps (primarily GUI apps)
/System and /Library - system-wide preferences and other library files
/Users - user home directories
When you install the developer tools, they are primarily located in /Developer

/usr, /tmp and others are still there when you pop up a command prompt, but hidden in the
GUI file system view.

As for whether this is a good way to organize things or not, perhaps I'm not the person to
ask. I'm used to the traditional *NIX hierarchy so I can typically find things pretty easily.
However, I teach Linux system administration and newbies frequently have trouble
navigating the file system.

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

Frej — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:41:52 +0000

Not foolproof. English is not the only language in town.

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

bjn — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:59:57 +0000

This is Mac OS X.

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

rschroev — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:40:25 +0000

If I understand you correctly, that would mean you cannot backup your config files by making a copy of /etc - you would end up with a bunch of symlinks instead of the data itself.

In that case, I prefer the standard way of doing things. The names could have be chosen better and the difference between the purpose of some directories is sometimes not clear, but I like how it separates static data (binaries, documentation) from configuration and from other variable data and from user data.

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

elanthis — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:14:52 +0000

There are already other Linux systems which do this - GoboLinux is in no way new or innovative. LinuxStep is one good example, among others.

Oh man!

BryceK — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:04:07 +0000

As a reformed DOS/Windows user, I've tried to do something like this for years on my Linux systems for packages I compile myself. It's a lot of work. The UNIX file hirerarchy is a heck of a head-wind to struggle against.

I've always hoped someone would do this for an entire distribution. I can't wait to try it!

Thanks LWN, for the heads up!

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

nix — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:49:33 +0000

Unfortunately, sometimes symlinks themselves contain information in their target, thus you cannot simple use "follow symlinks" in your backups.

Well, no: you really have to back up the symlinks *as symlinks*, and similarly for all other non-regular filetypes (or the first time you hit a non-connected FIFO, or /dev/zero, you'll never come back).

Every halfway-competent backup program does this, even `cp -a'.

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

ptr — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:33:37 +0000

I do not think that the Programs directory structure is more *logical* than the standard hierarchy (except the names themselves, maybe, for linux the "usr" directory naming is rediculous and purely historical).

The standard structure is a lot more useful for doing backups. Their /Programs structure is a lot more useful for doing package management within the file system.

What I like about GoboLinux is that they try to provide multiple views of the file system via symlinks (all executables are accesable via /System/Links/Executables). That makes for example backups easier. Unfortunately, sometimes symlinks themselves contain information in their target, thus you cannot simple use "follow symlinks" in your backups.

What I really dislike is the /tmp directory (look at all the security problems, etc.). A normal (non-server) user process should really avoid writing anywhere but into the home directory and use a private tmp storage in there. An even a server process or X11 should rather use something in /var.

GoboLinux - Fun with File System Hierarchy

vblum — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 04:24:32 +0000

This sounds like a dream - a Unix-like system where you can actually find things in an
intuitive way! Almost too good to be true ... well, too good for now, I guess. But, Linux
distributors would do well to look at such an effort - only then can you expect some average
person to be able to administer such a system in real life. Go Gobo.