Reply
Thread Tools
Posts: 1,522 | Thanked: 392 times | Joined on Jul 2010 @ São Paulo, Brazil
#101
The default folders could follow a stadanrd organization algorithm (organization being the key word), but thought that would be an advancement, the focus in this thread, at least originally, was about not needing to obey the predefined install folder when desired.
 
clasificado's Avatar
Posts: 466 | Thanked: 180 times | Joined on Feb 2010
#102
I dont know what the problem is, you can simlink to almost every standard fs from the default location, that isnt enough for you?
 
Posts: 5,335 | Thanked: 8,187 times | Joined on Mar 2007 @ Pennsylvania, USA
#103
Originally Posted by TiagoTiago View Post
didn't another person here said that using partitions instead of keeping everything in a single thing was a Windows user thing?
Installers like Ubuntu's tend to lead in the direction of one big partition, but no, that's not a "Linux thing". Windows 95 may have killed the old MS-DOS "join" command, but in the *nix world, it is normal to spread portions of the filesystem across multiple partitions, drives, and network volumes.

For instance, I tend to break at least /boot, /var, /var/tmp, /tmp, /usr, /usr/local, /opt, /home, and swap away from root. For each I can select a filesystem type appropriate to the data it will hold, and I don't need to worry that, say, a log file suddenly growing massively large will take down my machine. Using a logical volume manager makes it easy to expand a given filesystem when more space is needed, and drives may be added as needed.
__________________
maemo.org profile
 
Posts: 1,522 | Thanked: 392 times | Joined on Jul 2010 @ São Paulo, Brazil
#104
I would rather not have to jump thru hoops or wait till after the installation already happened in order to have a program be installed in different folders than the default; like i said early in this thread, similarly to how it is with most install process with Windows
 
Posts: 1,746 | Thanked: 2,100 times | Joined on Sep 2009
#105
Originally Posted by TiagoTiago View Post
I would rather not have to jump thru hoops or wait till after the installation already happened in order to have a program be installed in different folders than the default; like i said early in this thread, similarly to how it is with most install process with Windows
I find it amusing that someone whose sum total experience with programming is with Visual Basic, is lecturing us on how bad the Linux file system layout is, and asking why can't it be more like Windows.

At least, that's where I see this as going.
 
Posts: 1,522 | Thanked: 392 times | Joined on Jul 2010 @ São Paulo, Brazil
#106
Originally Posted by sjgadsby View Post
Installers like Ubuntu's tend to lead in the direction of one big partition, but no, that's not a "Linux thing". Windows 95 may have killed the old MS-DOS "join" command, but in the *nix world, it is normal to spread portions of the filesystem across multiple partitions, drives, and network volumes.
...
I think someone (either me or some of you, or perhaps both) is getting things backwards here....

I always thought that using a single partition for the whole physical hard disk, was a Windows thing, and using lots of partitions was a Linux thing; but i could swear someone in this thread said the opposite was what was widely accepted as the norm.
 
Posts: 2,829 | Thanked: 1,459 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Finland
#107
Originally Posted by TiagoTiago View Post
I would rather not have to jump thru hoops or wait till after the installation already happened in order to have a program be installed in different folders than the default; like i said early in this thread, similarly to how it is with most install process with Windows
But we have said many many times here that whole structure of modular linux is what it is. You are hitting your head to wall here
 
Posts: 2,829 | Thanked: 1,459 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Finland
#108
Originally Posted by TiagoTiago View Post
I think someone (either me or some of you, or perhaps both) is getting things backwards here....

I always thought that using a single partition for the whole physical hard disk, was a Windows thing, and using lots of partitions was a Linux thing; but i could swear someone in this thread said the opposite was what was widely accepted as the norm.
It was probably me and what I meant was that quite many people windows machines what I have used have had C/D/E etc. DRIVE letters and folder structure is bit like your bookshelf in library. When it comes Linux FS it´s something that at least to me I can't put in real physical world. It´s just totally something different.

Last edited by slender; 2010-10-12 at 20:10.
 
Posts: 992 | Thanked: 738 times | Joined on Jun 2010 @ Low Earth Orbit
#109
Originally Posted by TiagoTiago View Post
it's jsut one or two steps more than looking for the right file to send
That's assuming you know which keys a particular program is using. With *nix programs it's mostly obvious since config file is similarly to program name and mostly it's just 1 file or 1 directory.
 
Posts: 1,522 | Thanked: 392 times | Joined on Jul 2010 @ São Paulo, Brazil
#110
Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
I find it amusing that someone whose sum total experience with programming is with Visual Basic, is lecturing us on how bad the Linux file system layout is, and asking why can't it be more like Windows.

At least, that's where I see this as going.
lol, amusing take on the situation....


What i'm complaining about (and trying to understand why it could be considered better) are two things:
  • Lack of choice of destination folders when installing programs thru normal means.

    and

  • Dumping executables all in a single folder, config files all in another single folder etc, instead of developing the folder tree keeping things more organized.
 
Reply

Tags
nerd rage, whatthef?

Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:23.