config files on linux

[t.s.]

does anyone knows that WHY our user configs file reside on /home/[user]/ ??
WHY there's not in a 'sane' place like /home/[user]/.configs ??

everytime I type 'ls -al' on terminal, I told to myself, "damn, what a mess.."

.. and why there's none that think that way [the way I think]? I love an orderly things. Neat things (You do, yes?). Not something like the way linux placing their config files.

sigh...

[curaga]

Actually, many apps/libs do place their configs in ~/.config/appname/. Gtk2, Qt4, mumble, psi, epdfview for example.

Guess it's a matter of the programmer's preference.

[t.s.]

But still,
there's bunch of program that still drop their config file on /home/[username]
and I think that config file placement is ruled by the distro, not the programmer, no?

[deanjo]

But still,
there's bunch of program that still drop their config file on /home/[username]
and I think that config file placement is ruled by the distro, not the programmer, no?

Well I think it should actually be made of the official FSH instead of the distro but ya all those .config folders and files are messy. That is one area where I really love OS X for and it's neat organization of it's .plists.

[duby229]

does anyone knows that WHY our user configs file reside on /home/[user]/ ??
WHY there's not in a 'sane' place like /home/[user]/.configs ??

everytime I type 'ls -al' on terminal, I told to myself, "damn, what a mess.."

.. and why there's none that think that way [the way I think]? I love an orderly things. Neat things (You do, yes?). Not something like the way linux placing their config files.

sigh...

My biggest complaint is that syntax is different for most config files... I really believe that someone should standardize config file systax. Though I have to admit that may not happen until some sort of central config management thingamajig is developed..... And that doesnt sound too good to me so for now I'm happy with the way it is..

[energyman]

But still,
there's bunch of program that still drop their config file on /home/[username]
and I think that config file placement is ruled by the distro, not the programmer, no?

no. It is 'ruled' by the author's of the app. Go complain to them.

[yotambien]

does anyone knows that WHY our user configs file reside on /home/[user]/ ??
WHY there's not in a 'sane' place like /home/[user]/.configs ??

everytime I type 'ls -al' on terminal, I told to myself, "damn, what a mess.."

.. and why there's none that think that way [the way I think]? I love an orderly things. Neat things (You do, yes?). Not something like the way linux placing their config files.

sigh...

Ah, I thought I was the only one with this problem. Mainly it's only annoying for the 'save' dialogs, where you have to scroll down to find your visible folders, but still an annoyance you have to face everyday. A hidden directory inside ~/ would be perfect. I guess it would be down to the distributions to sort this out...

[energyman]

hm, konqueror does not show the . files by default. So maybe you shopuld stop using crap?

[Ant P.]

In 99% of those dialogue boxes right clicking the file list gives an option to hide the dotfiles.

[t.s.]

@deanjo & @yotambien
Yup.. Somebody here think to bring this up this topic to some distro? Hm.. I think I will; To Debian and/or Canonical first ;).

@dubby229
I think it's not that problematic. Well, something like grub2 cfg and fonts.conf and, say, vimrc conf doesn't or mustn't have same configuration syntax. They are kind of serve their purpose that way for now. From some that super complicated, medium, to easy--aka just work-- config files.

@energyman
Yes, bro..
You know that, I know, and others know too. GNOME and others WM have an option to turn off the 'show hidden files' option, too. But, some apps just don't behave like that.
And then again, it's not the point. Say, it's like you just drop all your files on your hdd or flash disk without categorizing it. And that will became a mess one day, when you have too much files and directories.

But still,
there's bunch of program that still drop their config file on /home/[username]
and I think that config file placement is ruled by the distro, not the programmer, no?no. It is 'ruled' by the author's of the app. Go complain to them.
Anybody can confirm this?
I still think that a distro ruling the placement of the apps config files.

Edit: Yep, I get it, energyman. I think you're right.
Then the question is not how to bring it to some distro then, but to linux apps programmer, all of them.
sigh..

[energyman]

you know what? choose any app that drops its config straight into $HOME, fetch the sources, install it (deinstall the version installed by your distro), remove the config file, start the app.

BANG, config file is in $HOME.

[yotambien]

hm, konqueror does not show the . files by default. So maybe you shopuld stop using crap?

Or maybe you should stop making assumptions. I activated the 'show . files' option on purpose in both KDE and Gnome because I worked for a good while on something that involved continuously opening/saving my stuff from/in a hidden configuration folder. Sure, I should deactivate it now. Only that I don't have any DE anymore, just the apps I need, and I wrongly thought you needed the Gnome and KDE configuration tools to change it again. But:

In 99% of those dialogue boxes right clicking the file list gives an option to hide the dotfiles.

That's handy! I sometimes have this thought that the gtk save dialog can't be that terribly bad, and that somebody, somewhere, knows some unexpected tricks that render it usable and keyboard navigable...As a matter of fact, looking up this stuff just now, I stumbled upon this Slashdot comments:

If you are referring to the standard GTK File-open-dialog, try to press CTRL+H, as that will show hidden files. You could also right-click and choose "Show hidden files" from the pop-up menu.Yeah, there was a moment of genius from the designers. "hahaah! we'll make viewing hidden files a HIDDEN feature!!!"

[rohcQaH]

Anybody can confirm this?
file locations are embedded in the program's source code, thus the programmer's choice. Complain to them. Better yet, submit patches to the projects.
With open source apps, the distributions should be able to change it, but that's a lot of work if you're bundling hundreds of apps (both for the initial changes and for maintaining the changes on newer versions). Thus nobody does it for only little benefit. The solution is to get patches upstream.

Where 'little benefit' means:
~> ls -A1 ~ | grep '^\.' | wc -l
123
and I still live and am in no way constricted by their presence in my daily tasks.

[duby229]

Edit: Yep, I get it, energyman. I think you're right.
Then the question is not how to bring it to some distro then, but to linux apps programmer, all of them.
sigh..

Yep, that's why I said it'll probably need some form of standardized central configuration. The problem is that it didnt work out so good for MS, so I just dont think it is a good idea.

[dosenpfand]

I never tried it, but Gobolinux has a diffrent approach in filesystem hierachy, not really what the opener wants to have but all in all it seems to be a little bid more sane to me

[mtippett]

Yep, that's why I said it'll probably need some form of standardized central configuration. The problem is that it didnt work out so good for MS, so I just dont think it is a good idea.

Even with MS, you end up the registry, which ends up being a complete mess of different approaches within a hierarchical database. And this with a single policy. You still end up with app data also being stored within application directory and also in the per-users App Data directory.

The problem under Linux is you have *lots* of standards and policies to choose from. KDE has it's config area, gnome has it's, freedesktop has theirs. If you don't like it you build it yourself.

The interplay of distribution and developer is where the difficulty comes. Developers need to consider multiple distributions, distributions need to support multiple developers, developers need to choose their preferred mechanism balancing their requirements and their "preferred" distributions, etc.

The end result here is that almost everyone considers their most important 80% (of course only representing 20% of the market). The developers target the 20% of distributions and desktop environments that they believe their users use. The distros target where possible the 20% of applications, etc.

You just end up with a mess. The only saving grace is that you have system settings (for the most part) in /etc, user settings (for the most part) in $HOME. And that the majority of developers don't see config files as being a critical area of interest to them so they re-use libraries or interfaces where possible.

The irony is that the developers that want to hit the largest distributions and desktop environments end up creating their own solution since it guarantees simplicity for the user.

Regards,

Matthew

[Micket]

This desperately needs to be said:
http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-0.6.html
is the way to go.
I love it, and i typically set $XDG_CONFIG_HOME to ~/config (if it's just one folder with settings, why would it even need to be hidden?

Hoever, many developers will be very reluctant to implement this. Expect VERY aggresive replies if you make a humble suggestion to use this in a feature request. Some developers straight out hate the very idea of this spec.

[t.s.]

BANG, config file is in $HOME.
You mean in $HOME/config, yes..

Where 'little benefit' means:
~> ls -A1 ~ | grep '^\.' | wc -l
123and I still live and am in no way constricted by their presence in my daily tasks.
Well, yeah, for now. But still, It's better to group it on one folder, no? Rather than to scatter them on our $HOME dir..? Oh well..

Yep, that's why I said it'll probably need some form of standardized central configuration. The problem is that it didnt work out so good for MS, so I just dont think it is a good idea.I think you're heading in other ways, duby229. What I want is just all config file that reside on $HOME moved on one special directory, say, '.config'. Our configs-in-$HOME has work, then configs-in-$HOME/.config has to work too, with that logic.

I never tried it, but Gobolinux has a diffrent approach in filesystem hierachy, not really what the opener wants to have but all in all it seems to be a little bid more sane to me Will try that when have time. thanks for the info ;).

@mtippett
Yep. short-term POV, or just-work. Hm.. Maybe following the majority.
...Oh well, I dunno.

This desperately needs to be said:
http://standards.freedesktop.org/bas...-spec-0.6.html
is the way to go.
I love it, and i typically set $XDG_CONFIG_HOME to ~/config (if it's just one folder with settings, why would it even need to be hidden?
Well, unfortunately, it's just for freedesktop related apps. And I think it's better with .config than ~/config. .confignamedir usually hidden by file manager, or ls, then it 'chance-less' removed or edited accidentally.

Hoever, many developers will be very reluctant to implement this. Expect VERY aggresive replies if you make a humble suggestion to use this in a feature request. Some developers straight out hate the very idea of this spec.Well, yes, for majority doesn't want to critized or getting input for what he/she done, especially if she do it for free, IMO

[Micket]

You mean in $HOME/config, yes..

Well, yeah, for now. But still, It's better to group it on one folder, no? Rather than to scatter them on our $HOME dir..? Oh well..

I think you're heading in other ways, duby229. What I want is just all config file that reside on $HOME moved on one special directory, say, '.config'. Our configs-in-$HOME has work, then configs-in-$HOME/.config has to work too, with that logic.

Will try that when have time. thanks for the info ;).

@mtippett
Yep. short-term POV, or just-work. Hm.. Maybe following the majority.
...Oh well, I dunno.

Well, unfortunately, it's just for freedesktop related apps. And I think it's better with .config than ~/config. .confignamedir usually hidden by file manager, or ls, then it 'chance-less' removed or edited accidentally.

Well, yes, for majority doesn't want to critized or getting input for what he/she done, especially if she do it for free, IMO

If you read the basedir spec that i linked you will see that it defaults to ~/.config if XDG_CONFIG_HOME is not set. The whole point of that is it's not hardcoded into the software. It also seperates junk (temp files, and less worthy data) from what would typically end up in ~/.somesoftware/

I'd bet that you already have a ~/.config which does contain some configs, and all those programs are most likely conforming to the basedir spec.
Some of the software i frequently use that conforms to the standard:
Awesome WM, XMMS2, GTK, QT, Anjuta, Brasero, Paraview, Thunar, Transmission, Comix, Texmaker

I dont know what you mean only for "freedesktop related apps", but it doesn't mean anything. Anyone can use it. Any software that is already using .config is most likely using it.

The basedir spec IS what you have been asking for. Suggestion that some software should use a fixed ~/.config has absolutely no advantage.

[energyman]

and like almost all freedesktop specs it was a gnome/gtk centric dickhead move.

So no spurprise everybody else is ignoring it.

[rohcQaH]

and like almost all freedesktop specs it was a gnome/gtk centric dickhead move.
funny enough that the email at the top of the spec ends with @kde.org,
kde3/4, xfce4, vlc and others seem to use the spec and there's no mention of toolkits in the spec anyway.

(kde puts their own files to ~/.kde, but cross-DE modules like akonadi use XDG paths, and they make sure the XDG variables are set up properly)

[Micket]

and like almost all freedesktop specs it was a gnome/gtk centric dickhead move.

So no spurprise everybody else is ignoring it.

Who says everyone else is ignoring it? Most software i got are not part of Gnome. I don't use Gnome or KDE, and i still want it. What part of it is Gnome-centric? Heck, if you looked at the fucking link you would see the maintainer of the document, Waldo Bastian ( http://behindkde.org/people/waldo/ ) so if you direct your hatred towards KDE then.

If you disagree with the spec, then make a suggestion on how it should be constructed, I dont find it perfect, but good enough to me.

[energyman]

if you have two ways to do something and you try to unify it with a third way you have three ways to do it and nothing is better.

[Micket]

if you have two ways to do something and you try to unify it with a third way you have three ways to do it and nothing is better.

Is that your way to debunk my arguments? Saying something seemingly "wise" that actually doesn't hold when you start looking into what you are really saying? What would be other ways be? Using some KDE/Gnome builtin config handlers, or the more common "all software do whatever they want" (which fortunately usually only result in a simple ~/.foobar).

If there was some actual value in your saying, then you can throw out every specification out the window. Even most suggested changes to conform to any kind of standard would be no good, and i think we all know how ridiculous such a claim is, but hey you already proved to be a troll with your fine arguments in the previous reply.


On a more serious note. It's not reasonable to expect all software to conform to this standard (typically old stuff and system tools), but there is alot of desktop apps that I think would fit perfectly into the basedir spec, and if they did, I think i could live with the handful of hidden settings folders.
I replied with this information because it was exactly what the t.s. was looking for.

[energyman]

no, just let it be. There aren't that many config files/directories. Adding another one won't reduce the amount in any real way. And since these are hidden files - who cares anyway?

[energyman]

Who says everyone else is ignoring it? Most software i got are not part of Gnome. I don't use Gnome or KDE, and i still want it. What part of it is Gnome-centric? Heck, if you looked at the fucking link you would see the maintainer of the document, Waldo Bastian ( http://behindkde.org/people/waldo/ ) so if you direct your hatred towards KDE then.

If you disagree with the spec, then make a suggestion on how it should be constructed, I dont find it perfect, but good enough to me.

ok, I was wrong. Does not change the fact that .config won't reduce the amount of config files in ~/ by a loarge enough quantity to create just another hidden directoy.

[Micket]

ok, I was wrong. Does not change the fact that .config won't reduce the amount of config files in ~/ by a loarge enough quantity to create just another hidden directoy.

Basedir spec says more than just moving to XDG_CONFIG_HOME, there is also cache will contain logs (i.e. cleaner config folders as well). I see a whole bunch of folders which could be updated to use this spec, which would reduce another, oh, 50 hidden files/folders that could reasonably use it (i.e. not things like .profile and other classics). Half of these would probably end up in .cache/ as it's just things like .octave_hist, .lesshst). And you have .config already.

[kraftman]

That's handy! I sometimes have this thought that the gtk save dialog can't be that terribly bad, and that somebody, somewhere, knows some unexpected tricks that render it usable and keyboard navigable...As a matter of fact, looking up this stuff just now, I stumbled upon this Slashdot comments:

If you are referring to the standard GTK File-open-dialog, try to press CTRL+H, as that will show hidden files. You could also right-click and choose "Show hidden files" from the pop-up menu.

Yeah, there was a moment of genius from the designers. "hahaah! we'll make viewing hidden files a HIDDEN feature!!!"

And they say it's a simple DE :rolleyes:

[dosenpfand]

A nice article about filesystem hirachy in unix and how about to tweak it to make it more user friendly

http://gobolinux.org/index.php?page=doc/articles/clueless