Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 02:06:18 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <mckay@thehub.com.au> To: Nathan Arun <nathan_arun@hotmail.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, mckay@thehub.com.au Subject: Re: a suggestion Message-ID: <200201241606.g0OG6I517948@dungeon.home> In-Reply-To: <F88HOzyfyz5b6KZmcK80000ce69@hotmail.com> from "Nathan Arun" at "Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:18:02 %2B0000" References: <F88HOzyfyz5b6KZmcK80000ce69@hotmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, 24th January 2002, "Nathan Arun" wrote: >May I dare suggest a cosmetic change to FreeBSD? Please set aside your >contempt for a windows programmer and objectively assess my e-mail. Rather than rip into you because you come from the dark side, I'll take this as a straightforward question. I'm sure you can be saved. :-) What you've suggested isn't really cosmetic. All Unix admins have these paths that you find confusing hardwired into their brains and fingers. It's totally automatic after a short time. So, in some sense, it's a non-problem: If you are ever going to need to know enough Unix that the exact directory structure matters, then you'll know that by osmosis before you know all the other really important stuff. >[He moves everything around a lot] >So there will be only 4 file systems: /, /sys, /apps, /usr. I've idly thought of rearranging everything too. After all, it mostly just accreted as time went by. Once there was only /bin for executables. And /usr was the "User" pack. Then user binaries had to go in /usr/bin. Once /usr/bin became formalised as part of the O/S, user binaries had to go somewhere else. /usr/local sprang into being. Network computing brought new difficulties, so /var was born. Later, package handling got out of hand and /opt was added to fix this (not here though, for some reason the ports people just stole /usr/local from the local admins). Hmm. Ports people: When can we have /usr/local back? I'll trade you /pkg for it. :-) My simplification of the directory structures ends up like this: / Mandatory, of course /dev Devices /bin Standard OS Executables /lib Standard Shared libraries /etc Local machine configuration files /opt Packages, 3rd party applications, and so forth /share Basically == /usr/share, but I can't think of a better name /var Writable local storage (so most of the rest can be R/O) /home User data In my scheme, the "Standard OS" part can be quite small, and most stuff can live in /opt. Of course there's no chance anyone will adopt this. I just dream. :-) >What I have suggested is an exact copy of Windows' "Winnt", "Program Files" >and "Documents and Settings" directories. But what's wrong in being easy and >clear? This structure is more logical. Logic must be in the eye of the beholder. I've always found the Windows layout to be totally bonkers. Especially the part where random apps overwrite bits of the OS as a "feature". And a plague of Biblical Proportions on whoever invented the registry! >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". Well, there are a lot of books on Unix. And lots of free source code to read. There is a lot of support available. Truly. I don't think the location of a few directories makes any difference. It's more in the fundamental mind set difference between Unix (power tool) and windows (um, some cuddly not-power tool of some sort, help me out here!). >UNIX community steadfastly refused to improve usability on the desktop and >Microsoft laughed it's way to the bank. I'm afraid the same thing is going >to happen on the server side as well. It's much more complicated than that. My desktop is top notch. Why don't you like it? Probably it is too spartan for you. Nothing animates. Nothing fades in or out. It is completely oriented towards getting my work done without getting in the way. No improvement in usability is necessary. Does that explain why I'm not working on desktop "improvement"? I'm not running Unix because it is difficult and I have a hairy chest. I do this because Bill Gate's toy OS is excruciatingly frustrating and never does what I want. Unix is enormously easier for me to use than windows. Oh, and being a product of a convicted monopoly that is intent on complete world domination doesn't help. I eat Dolphin Free tuna too. :-) Now, in the server area, a different class of people is involved. Unix is much safer there. I still laugh all day long at people who walk into the next room because they have to fiddle with the console to adjust some trivial setting on a windows server. I've always been able to remotely administer all my Unix boxes. This is from way back before windows even existed. What's wrong with all those windows weenies? Don't they care that their OS has been built stupid from day one? >Thank you for reading this far. Hope I haven't offended anyone. Um. Ditto. Stephen. 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?200201241606.g0OG6I517948>