config files on linux

[rohcQaH]

Originally Posted by energyman

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]

Originally Posted by energyman

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Micket

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]

Originally Posted by energyman

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]

Originally Posted by yotambien

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

[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=...icles/clueless