Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:00:04 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Nathan Arun <nathan_arun@hotmail.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a suggestion Message-ID: <3C4FCD14.E6F278BE@mindspring.com> References: <F88HOzyfyz5b6KZmcK80000ce69@hotmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nathan Arun wrote: > > Hello FreeBSD developers, > I sent an e-mail to freebsd core team. Mr. Warner Losh suggested I should > sent that e-mail to this arch list. > > So here it is. [ ... change layout of disk to resemble Windows ... ] The problem with this is that both layouts are wrong. The Windows layout is wrong because it assumes that programs will install libraries and other software into system controlled directories. The UNIX layout is wrong because it assumes that things will be installed into /usr/local. While it's nice that UNIX has at least made it possible to tell the difference between pieces of the OS, and the software you install on top of the OS, by the location where it is installed, ideally, applciations would be autonomous resources. This basically means that you would be able to get them out of the file space from a subhierarchy, and not care if the location of the files was on the local system, a remote system, or a CDROM. The problem with the Windows approach (aside from the inherent succeptibility to exploits and the confusion of what is application and what is system) is that the version of what's installed is not installation specific (this could be corrected on Windows, if they had hard links available in the FS -- they've only very recently "invented" symbolic links) so that each program could bring in the version of the DLLs and other file dependencies it cares about. The UNIX approach is much closer to the ideal, but could benefit from the idea of a "default user". Windows XP moves closer to the ideal, but from the wrong direction, by providing "personal views" on things. Like "themes", the main effect of a "persona view" is that technical support becomes an order of magnitude harder, since there are much fewer common points of reference between the person providing the support, and the person needing the support (in information theory, a common point of reference is called a "Schelling Point"; an old example is the file "README.TXT", and a more or less modern one is the file "LICENSE"). > I'm suggesting this because it is confusing to have so many bin & sbin > directories. This may sound trivial to experienced UNIX users like you, but > if you want to grow your user base, you should target the OS at more naive > developers like me. Many developers feel that windows is easy > and want to try something more challenging, but UNIX is too difficult. > > These difficulties in turn become a "SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO ADOPTION". I claim that this is based on the false premise that the average user would be looking around for, or even care where, files are located. The user cares whether or not the programs on the system work, and could really care less about whether or not the command they are accessing is in "/sbin", "/bin", "/usr/sbin", "/usr/bin", "/usr/local/sbin", "/usr/local/bin", "/usr/X11R6/bin", etc.. Finding the program is the job of the shell or file manager or desktop shortcut, not the job of the user, and it only becomes a problem when it's not where it can be found by that software. Windows hides this using the "installed image" concept, which originally came from VMS and its predecessors TOPS-20, TOPS-10, etc.. The programs are "known" because they are referenced by an installed image name vs. real path pair in the registry, or if they are user supplied, in the shortcut (e.g. moving an executable directory to a different name and clicking on the shortcut results in an automatic "search" operation that finds the moved program, and offers to permanently change the shortcut). > UNIX community steadfastly refused to improve usability on the desktop and > Microsoft laughed it's way to the bank. This is certainly true. But I place the blame at the feet of Novell. I once asked a Novell executive, at the preannouncement meeting for the employees (to see how it would sell) where they "deemphasized UNIX on the desktop", "If users aren't going to run UnixWare on their desktops, what _Novell_ OS *are* they going to run instead?". The answer was "Microsoft Windows", and that executive left Novell to pursue other opportunities after making that response. > I'm afraid the same thing is going > to happen on the server side as well. Unlikely. Server software has different human factors requirements (mostly because it's used by "different" humans 8-) 8-)). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C4FCD14.E6F278BE>