From: Michael Shigorin <mike@osdn.org.ua> To: smoke-room@lists.altlinux.org Subject: [room] [usab] Fwd: Re: Filesystem - hiding system folders? Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:33:55 +0300 Message-ID: <20060331063355.GH5173@osdn.org.ua> (raw) Здравствуйте. Выковырял похожее на изюм из одного треда в sounder@ubuntu. Возможно, usability folks это когда-то пригодится. Если заведутся. ----- Forwarded message from Jeff Waugh <jeff.waugh/ubuntu.com> ----- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:37:57 +1100 From: Jeff Waugh <jeff.waugh/ubuntu.com> To: sounder/lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Filesystem - hiding system folders? <quote who="Chanchao"> > That's a heck of a lot.. I know a lot of this is legacy unix stuff, but > thinking outside the box for a bit: is it really necessary to have that > all out in the open, visible to any newbie user? Like Apple have done with Mac OS X, we could create .hidden files and put them in one of our desktop-only packages. The /.hidden file could list the ugly, non-useful *nix directories that don't serve a purpose in a graphical file manager (dev, boot, etc). Nautilus supports .hidden files already, so it would just be a matter of finding the right place to put them, and the right things to hide (I doubt it would be necessary to have much more than the single /.hidden though). Making nice directory names for the other stuff is harder, and not quite so useful, because we can't really make the dramatic changes Apple have done here without tossing away things like FHS compliance and so on. Plus, our developer platform doesn't work the same way, so if we made aliases from say, lib -> Libraries, it wouldn't be useful anyway. - Jeff -- FISL 7.0: Porto Alegre, Brazil http://fisl.softwarelivre.org/7.0/www/ "Socks for the foot menu!" - Liam Quin ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Jeff Waugh <jeff.waugh/ubuntu.com> ----- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:12:36 +1100 From: Jeff Waugh <jeff.waugh/ubuntu.com> To: sounder/lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Logical and relevant [Was: Filesystem - hiding system folders?] <quote who="Peter Garrett"> > I'm all in favour of making good GUI tools - but I genuinely find it > puzzling when people make the assumption that users are intimidated by a > quite logical file system structure... Logical is not always 'intuitive' and doesn't rule out 'intimidating'. You really have to ask what it *means* to people who don't care to learn about or understand it. If it doesn't mean anything, why put it there? The stuff we love about 'logical' FHS organisation is utterly irrelevant to the broad majority of users who care more about what they can do with a computer than how the computer gets it done. All of this stuff is dull machinery. It may be very interesting machinery to you and I, and we'll hold strong opinions about which way the machinery should work [1], but to someone like my Mum, it's just a huge pile of pointless drivel that gets in her way of grokking how to do what she wants to do. Apple went half-way with OS X. While they hid a bunch of stuff, they still exposed chunks of their own machinery (quite different to *nix machinery, but still machinery). Mac OS <= 9 was pretty good in this respect, with a couple of fairly safely tucked away locations for computer machinery, but on the whole, very satisfyingly learnable and tactile. (There will always be more levers and buttons in a computer than on a car, and it's likely that you can learn about all of the levers and buttons on your car but only some of the ones on your computer, but ideally you'd learn what you can in very similar ways.) We can probably do better - eventually - and it does not necessarily imply FHS-incompatible changes to do so. Always remember that what's logical or relevant to you may not be logical or relevant to your user. Given that you're posting to a mailing list about a FLOSS project (let alone the chit-chat geektalk sounder list), I'd be pretty comfortable saying that *most* of what's logical or relevant to you about computers is not so for the majority of (current and potential) computer users. :-) - Jeff [1] AIX and HP-UX evil. FHS good. -- GUADEC 2006: Vilanova i la Geltr?, Spain http://2006.guadec.org/ Wars end, love lasts. ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Shawn McMahon <smcmahon/eiv.com> ----- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:11:14 -0500 From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon/eiv.com> To: sounder/lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Filesystem - hiding system folders? On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 04:45:33PM +1100, Peter Garrett said: > > Why are people so keen on hiding things? One of the things that I > particularly like about Linux is the very fact that things are *not* > hidden. I think it's more "Post-Windows Stress Syndrome". In Windows, people would see things they didn't understand, delete them, then not understand why we couldn't fix them without a complete reinstall. In Linux, they can't delete anything important unless the packager made an error in setting permissions or they take another step to be root, and anyway it can be fixed without having to reinstall all your applications and lose your settings. It's OK if they are a little confused, as long as it isn't trivial for them to destroy everything. -- Shawn McMahon | Ubuntu: an ancient African word meaning "I am sick EIV Consulting | of compiling Gentoo". http://www.eiv.com | - Jeff Waugh (paraphrased) ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Peter Garrett <peter.garrett/optusnet.com.au> ----- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 04:04:24 +1100 From: Peter Garrett <peter.garrett/optusnet.com.au> To: sounder/lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Filesystem - hiding system folders? On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:49:42 +0200 Alan McKinnon <alan/linuxholdings.co.za> wrote: [snip ] > > Why are you claiming that Linux has a "steep learning curve"? I see no > evidence for this at all. In fact, I see the opposite. I've delivered > end user courses using Ubuntu Warty of all things and no-one had any > trouble grasping the concepts. Similarly, I've taught photography to complete beginners, and they have little trouble grasping the concepts of shutter speeds, apertures, depth-of-field and so - provided they are given good analogies for them. I would argue that these concepts and their uses are considerably more difficult to grasp as a whole than the idea of a filesystem. [snip] > Don't underestimate the ability of the average human > being to understand how things are different and therefore cope with > it. Even the shell - easiest thing in the world to explain <rant> Hear,hear! This is the crux of the matter. I gather that, for example, to "simplify" the menus, the entry for file-roller has been removed in Dapper on the grounds that we "usually" use it by opening the relevant file in Nautilus. Thus, unless the user knows the command to run it from a terminal or "alt-F2", (another item now hidden from view, incidentally), that user has no option but to use it as the designers have seen fit to decide. Apparently we are all supposed to know and love Nautilus, and anyone who prefers a different way of working is out of luck, or supposed to know the command. A similar movement was started to have Totem removed from the menus, with similar "reasoning" : - I gather that hasn't happened yet, but is still being considered. How such ideas are seen as remotely sensible is frankly beyond me.... It would be interesting to see people's reactions to browsing the "Debian" menu after only being aware of Ubuntu's Gnome menu. For some that would undoubtedly be confusing at first - but I suspect it would also be a revelation to many people just how much is already "hidden". Here endeth the rant ;-) </rant> -- Peter Garrett ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Alan McKinnon <alan/linuxholdings.co.za> ----- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:53:12 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon <alan/linuxholdings.co.za> To: sounder/lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Filesystem - hiding system folders? On Tuesday 28 March 2006 12:14, Chanchao wrote: > Hi, > > [Warning] Stupid question alert: If you're an accomplished Linux > guru, chances are that the following will make your toes curl into > cramped blobs.[/warning] It is, and they did :-) > Would there be any merit in hiding (or moving) all the system > folders that are currently present in the root folder? I notice > that on Windows it's rather straightforward these days; user files > & settings (home) are in 'Documents and Settings', applications are > in 'Program Files', and anything else is in 'Windows' and that's > pretty much it. There is absolutely no merit in this, and trying to do it is silly. Here goes: There's good reasons for /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin and they won't be collapsed any time soon. You might get away with collapsing bin and sbin (it's only there to be able to give root a different $PATH) but /opt, /usr and the rest need to be there in the current form. System directories either exist or don't exist, and they have pre-defined names. Trust me, this is a very very very good thing. All Linux programs assume that /etc/ exists, therefore they can do a simple file read operation to get to their config files. You could hide /etc from the casual user by calling it /.etc but that would break every program in existence, so it ain't gonna happen. There is no "hidden" attribute in the file systems we use either. To be able to hide directories and still have an OS that works, you would have to introduce a level of indirection in the code for programs to still be able to get at data - a program would issue a system call, the system would translate it to reading a file and hand back the data. Why would anyone do this? There's no benefit to it. It has already been done on one OS and it's called the registry. This one "innovation" is single-handedly responsible for the need to re-install that OS on a bi-annual basis. We aren't going to go that route. So to hide or move system directories, we have to change their names. This breaks FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard) - it isn't gonna happen. The most compelling reason is the POV *nix developers have of their users: Our user are intelligent people who know what they are doing, are not complete idiots and don't need their hands held. We do not need to protect our users from themselves. Windows OTOH has this view: You are an idiot. You can't possibly understand anything about the machine in front of you so we will hide it all from you. This makes it very hard to do anything other than click buttons but we don't care - you can't be trusted. And if that cripples your ability to work, we don't care. There are other ways to accomplish what you want - like restricting users to their home directories. Meanwhile, 10 minutes of user education nicely solves the entire problem as to what all these directories are for. -- Alan McKinnon alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za +27 82, double three seven, one nine three five ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Alan McKinnon <alan/linuxholdings.co.za> ----- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:53:49 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon <alan/linuxholdings.co.za> To: sounder/lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Filesystem - hiding system folders? On Wednesday 29 March 2006 18:28, Colin Watson wrote: > (FWIW, although you may not care:) fwiw, I do :-) > On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 04:11:49PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > /rofs: Dunno > > "Read-only filesystem"; this gives you the raw contents of the live > CD you just booted, without the changes that were made in memory in > the process of booting and running it. This is used by the live CD > installer so that it can copy a known, standard image to your hard > disk, which makes installations from live CDs much easier to > support. Ah, so that's what it is. I stand before you... enlightened > > /sbin: System programs that normally only root uses like fdisk, > > mkfs*, netstat. Separate from /bin so it can go in root's $PATH > > but not a user's > > It's actually on the $PATH for regular users in Ubuntu too, because > we got fed up of the million bugs of the form "such-and-such is in > /sbin but I have a use for it as a regular user", although of > course you can still take it off your $PATH if you want. Don't you just hate it when real life stomps all over a perfectly good idea? <snip clarifications of other dirs> You make valid points - thanks. What I posted was mostly for Chanchao's benefit - he comes across as a Windows refugee who is trying hard to grok this durn new-fangled Linux thang but is having a hard time dropping the Windahs POV, so I made it ultra simple -- Alan McKinnon alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za +27 82, double three seven, one nine three five ----- End forwarded message ----- -- ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike@altlinux.ru> ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/
reply other threads:[~2006-03-31 6:33 UTC|newest] Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20060331063355.GH5173@osdn.org.ua \ --to=mike@osdn.org.ua \ --cc=shigorin@gmail.com \ --cc=smoke-room@lists.altlinux.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Культурный офтопик This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone: git clone --mirror http://lore.altlinux.org/smoke-room/0 smoke-room/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 smoke-room smoke-room/ http://lore.altlinux.org/smoke-room \ smoke-room@lists.altlinux.org smoke-room@lists.altlinux.ru smoke-room@lists.altlinux.com smoke-room@altlinux.ru smoke-room@altlinux.org smoke-room@altlinux.com public-inbox-index smoke-room Example config snippet for mirrors. Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://lore.altlinux.org/org.altlinux.lists.smoke-room AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git