Re: Progress on a "spiritual" derivation of GoboLinux
Liam Proven <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.distributions.gobo.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAMTenCEYnpNejenLyg4Bja06m+PZysr9zcK1VNa35iP045Ftbw@mail.gmail.com> |
On 4 May 2013 12:36, Sepero <[email protected]> wrote: > IMHO Gobo hasn't withstood 14 revisions. It made a splash with it's > filesystem layout in initial years, but has went progressively downhill > since. This doesn't mean that the Hierarchy is bad, neither is the way it's > handled bad. In fact, both are very good. Just that I think some major flaws > were made in it's inception that were never (or never able to be?) fixed. > > Two primary ones stick out to me. > > The first being that it doesn't have a way to account for different builds > of the same program with the same version. Things like the vendor and > possibly compile flags do need to be taken into account. This would allow > the administrator to have a custom source build of a program running along a > stock build. (This may be partly to blame for why there was there never a > 64bit Gobo.) OK, true, but is this a common issue? Can one not just create arbitrary ad-hoc names and use them? > The second being capitalized folder/file names. The only reason I can figure > that this was ever considered to be a good idea was because the designer was > using zsh. Big fail. Bash is the industry standard, and it does not auto > capitalize. Don't get me wrong, I think zshell is great, but many of us just > want the standard. Basing a system around something that is not standard is > begging for failure. Others may think I'm wrong and that's ok. I think that's just for readability. OS X does it. MoonOS, as I've just discovered, does it. Windows, of course, does it. RISC OS and things do it. > I'm just being honest in this, and I think there are a lot of great things > about Gobo as a file hierarchy and OS. I just also think there are problems > inherent to the core of the system, and they can't be worked out. They just > have to be replaced. OK, fair enough. I've not looked at it in depth and do not currently even have a VM running it. > I agree that Ben's analogy to filesystem creation isn't great. (Ext3? :)) > But I think Ben makes a great point with "accomplish your goals without > changing the filesystem hierarchy standard". That's something I think makes > a lot of sense. I don't see how; that seems to contradict the intentions of Gobo to me. What am I missing? -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: [email protected] • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: [email protected] • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884