Originally Posted by Ericg
Both of you would look to this 'revolutionary' distro where each program gets its own specific folder
Originally Posted by zanny
Apparently it has failed to get interest from the linux community.
I started using Linux full time as my main desktop after it got depreciated (I was way too big on my pc gaming in college...), and I don't think the filesystem layout is a critical consideration for me as a user. It is an annoyance as a developer, though. I value pacman / rolling release / the AUR more than I do a more logical fileystem layout (albeit, Gobo has a really good one I think). The /Depot doesn't make much sense to me, though - have VFS top level subdirectories depending on context would be great, like in plan9, but I'm not sure Linux has generic virtual directories that can support that behavior, so I'd rather see all a users "stuff" in the users filesystem under their username. I'd also rather see a replication of user owned files of the same types as those under /System under the users home directory. Better yet, I'd rather see traditional /bin /lib etc for the system under /Users/root/Lib, /Users/root/bin, etc, since system files and root-owned files blur here.
Originally Posted by juanrga
Another way to think about it is / is the root home folder, and Users/<name> is the users "root". Maybe not even have a /root or Users/root at all? Same way Ubuntu doesn't come with a literal root user account, just sudo permissions and the root group.
Last edited by zanny; 07-15-2013 at 07:54 PM.
Duh... just like .config and .local/share
Originally Posted by plonoma
And /opt, and /usr/local, and /usr/share, and ~/.<appname>.
Originally Posted by Cyber Killer
Also, I like how the name for the "application state" is local/share. Because share used to mean network shared resources, and local meant system local files per box, and both names lost all meaning and mutated, and then we threw a dotfile in the home directory to just make even less sense. Wtb ~/Data and ~/Config (without being hidden).