Re: GoboLinux announced - This this "file organization" make sense?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb
  • Start date Start date
M

Moshe Goldfarb

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:07:08 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> http://gobolinux.org/index.php?page=at_a_glance
>
> <quote>
>
> What is GoboLinux?
> GoboLinux is a modular Linux distribution: it organizes the programs in your
> system in a new, logical way. Instead of having parts of a program thrown at
> /usr/bin, other parts at /etc and yet more parts thrown at
> /usr/share/something/or/another, each program gets its own directory tree,
> keeping them all neatly separated and allowing you to see everything that's
> installed in the system and which files belong to which programs in a simple
> and obvious way.
>
> This is what you see in the root of a GoboLinux system:
>
> ~] cd /
> /] ls
> Programs
> Users
> System
> Files
> Mount
> Depot
>
> /Programs is where all programs reside. No exceptions. You can explore what
> is installed in the system by looking inside it:
>
>
> </quote>

More convoluted useless stuff from the wacky world of Linux.
Add it to the garbage can along with the others.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:07:08 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> http://gobolinux.org/index.php?page=at_a_glance
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> What is GoboLinux?
>> GoboLinux is a modular Linux distribution: it organizes the programs in
>> your system in a new, logical way. Instead of having parts of a program
>> thrown at /usr/bin, other parts at /etc and yet more parts thrown at
>> /usr/share/something/or/another, each program gets its own directory
>> tree, keeping them all neatly separated and allowing you to see
>> everything that's installed in the system and which files belong to which
>> programs in a simple and obvious way.
>>
>> This is what you see in the root of a GoboLinux system:
>>
>> ~] cd /
>> /] ls
>> Programs
>> Users
>> System
>> Files
>> Mount
>> Depot
>>
>> /Programs is where all programs reside. No exceptions. You can explore
>> what is installed in the system by looking inside it:
>>
>>
>> </quote>
>
> More convoluted useless stuff from the wacky world of Linux.
> Add it to the garbage can along with the others.
>
>

As little as you may like it, Gobolinux runs quite nicely. And no matter how
hard or deep as you look, still no windows registry to get garbled, still
no virus, still no worms and finally... still no malware to effect it.
GoboLinux, as different as it may be organized, is still as rock solid as
any other linux distribution out there...







--

Jerry McBride (jmcbride@mail-on.us)
 
Jerry McBride <jmcbride@mail-on.us> writes:

> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:07:08 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> http://gobolinux.org/index.php?page=at_a_glance
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>>
>>> What is GoboLinux?
>>> GoboLinux is a modular Linux distribution: it organizes the programs in
>>> your system in a new, logical way. Instead of having parts of a program
>>> thrown at /usr/bin, other parts at /etc and yet more parts thrown at
>>> /usr/share/something/or/another, each program gets its own directory
>>> tree, keeping them all neatly separated and allowing you to see
>>> everything that's installed in the system and which files belong to which
>>> programs in a simple and obvious way.
>>>
>>> This is what you see in the root of a GoboLinux system:
>>>
>>> ~] cd /
>>> /] ls
>>> Programs
>>> Users
>>> System
>>> Files
>>> Mount
>>> Depot
>>>
>>> /Programs is where all programs reside. No exceptions. You can explore
>>> what is installed in the system by looking inside it:
>>>
>>>
>>> </quote>
>>
>> More convoluted useless stuff from the wacky world of Linux.
>> Add it to the garbage can along with the others.
>>
>>
>
> As little as you may like it, Gobolinux runs quite nicely. And no
> matter how


What does "quite nicely" mean and why would one want a "quite nice"
distro just because it has tried to copy a windows like file structure
- symbolic links or no symbolic links.

It is quite clear that some dweeb figured out symbolic links and decided
to be l33t ....

> hard or deep as you look, still no windows registry to get garbled,
> still

Ha! But a spaghetti of symbolic links to do so. There was simply no need
for this garbage.

> no virus, still no worms and finally... still no malware to effect it.
> GoboLinux, as different as it may be organized, is still as rock solid as
> any other linux distribution out there...

--
.... but hey, this is Linux, isn't it meant to do infinite loops in 5
seconds?
-- Jonathan Oxer in the apt-cacher ChangeLog
 
In article <1xu78og518658$.vo4tkhuk5n72.dlg@40tude.net>,
Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote:
> More convoluted useless stuff from the wacky world of Linux.
> Add it to the garbage can along with the others.

That's not really correct. There *are* a lot of Linux distributions
that are close enough to prior distributions to be questionable--they
would make a lot more sense as a small patch to the existing
distribution.

But GoboLinux is not one of those. It is actually quite a departure
from what the others are doing. It is a perfect example of when it *is*
a good idea to do a new distribution.

--
--Tim Smith
 
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:59:53 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

> In article <1xu78og518658$.vo4tkhuk5n72.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> More convoluted useless stuff from the wacky world of Linux.
>> Add it to the garbage can along with the others.
>
> That's not really correct. There *are* a lot of Linux distributions
> that are close enough to prior distributions to be questionable--they
> would make a lot more sense as a small patch to the existing
> distribution.
>
> But GoboLinux is not one of those. It is actually quite a departure
> from what the others are doing. It is a perfect example of when it *is*
> a good idea to do a new distribution.

Well I must have missed it then.
I consider stuff like DSL and 64Studio etc to be different enough in that
they are targeted distrubutions and have no qualms with them.

GoboLinux seems totally useless to me.
Maybe it's a show of concept thing, but WTF?

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> In article <1xu78og518658$.vo4tkhuk5n72.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> More convoluted useless stuff from the wacky world of Linux.
>> Add it to the garbage can along with the others.
>
> That's not really correct. There *are* a lot of Linux distributions
> that are close enough to prior distributions to be questionable--they
> would make a lot more sense as a small patch to the existing
> distribution.
>
> But GoboLinux is not one of those. It is actually quite a departure
> from what the others are doing. It is a perfect example of when it *is*
> a good idea to do a new distribution.

What is *good* about what they have done?

--
<Overfiend> ltd: Fine, go through life just pointing and grunting at
what you mean. Works for Mac users.
 
In article <ft9apf$n1a$2@registered.motzarella.org>,
Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > But GoboLinux is not one of those. It is actually quite a departure
> > from what the others are doing. It is a perfect example of when it *is*
> > a good idea to do a new distribution.
>
> What is *good* about what they have done?

I didn't say that what they are actually doing is good (or bad). It is,
however, the kind of thing for which doing a new distribution is good,
because it is a sufficient departure from other distributions.

That said, the direction they are going seems good to me. OS X does the
"app as a directory" approach, and it works out very well. They are
trying an even more complete version of that, and it will be interesting
to see what happens. It might turn out to not be a good idea, or it
might turn out to be excellent. But the point is, this is a good reason
to do a new distribution.

--
--Tim Smith
 
Hadron wrote:

>
> What is *good* about what they have done?
>



Assuming it's a filesystem setup from scratch, it looks far superior
to the typical Linux distro where files are spread over hell's half
acre. I'd love to see more distro's head in this direction.

The Unix heritage of Linux may be rock solid but housekeeping was not
one of their strong suits.
 
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> In article <ft9apf$n1a$2@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > But GoboLinux is not one of those. It is actually quite a departure
>> > from what the others are doing. It is a perfect example of when it *is*
>> > a good idea to do a new distribution.
>>
>> What is *good* about what they have done?
>
> I didn't say that what they are actually doing is good (or bad). It is,
> however, the kind of thing for which doing a new distribution is good,
> because it is a sufficient departure from other distributions.
>
> That said, the direction they are going seems good to me. OS X does the
> "app as a directory" approach, and it works out very well. They are
> trying an even more complete version of that, and it will be interesting
> to see what happens. It might turn out to not be a good idea, or it
> might turn out to be excellent. But the point is, this is a good reason
> to do a new distribution.

We will have to disagree.

It is the worst reason. It is totally at odds. Technical people can cope
with the current setup - it's hardly rocket science anyway and "non tech
types" shouldn't know anything about it anyway - all apps should be on
the path or link via menu anyway.
 
"Sarah D." <not_valid@notvalid.address> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>>
>> What is *good* about what they have done?
>>
>
>
>
> Assuming it's a filesystem setup from scratch, it looks far superior
> to the typical Linux distro where files are spread over hell's half
> acre. I'd love to see more distro's head in this direction.
>
> The Unix heritage of Linux may be rock solid but housekeeping was not
> one of their strong suits.
>

I disagree.

Having per app directory storage physically done is crazy - for a start
it makes back up harder. Even if the physical files are only linked to
then its a total mess.

The current way is not perfect, but someone shouldnt really care which
directory a program is in. The only thing you are interested in are its
config files and we have the home dir and the /etc for that currently -
it works, is well supported and is well documented.

This "new" setup on what will be a minor distro will simply be another
piece of pollution in the Linux knowledge base.

And what scares me the most about it is that new people to Linux might
think "that makes sense" and use it only to discover that its at odds
with the rest of the Linux world and that the distro makers have jumped
ship anyway leaving them with a discarded mutant distro.
 
Hadron wrote:


>
> Having per app directory storage physically done is crazy - for a
> start it makes back up harder. Even if the physical files are only
> linked to then its a total mess.
>



I've never had a problem doing backups at work using windose servers.
I don't see this as being a valid complaint. The Unix/Linux world
seems to be full of "purist" types that think things should always be
done the old way.

In the beginning, getting a non-root ppp connection was considered a
milestone event. Thankfully, we've (mostly) moved beyond that
nonsense.




>
> This "new" setup on what will be a minor distro will simply be
> another piece of pollution in the Linux knowledge base.
>




I would imagine every improvement brought to Linux was
considered "pollution" at one time. I don't buy it.
 
"Sarah D." <not_valid@notvalid.address> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Having per app directory storage physically done is crazy - for a
>> start it makes back up harder. Even if the physical files are only
>> linked to then its a total mess.
>>

>
> I've never had a problem doing backups at work using windose servers.
> I don't see this as being a valid complaint. The Unix/Linux world
> seems to be full of "purist" types that think things should always be
> done the old way.

I'm not sure you really understand why the config files are where they
are then.

> In the beginning, getting a non-root ppp connection was considered a
> milestone event. Thankfully, we've (mostly) moved beyond that
> nonsense.

Whatever that has to do with this thread I am not sure.

>>
>> This "new" setup on what will be a minor distro will simply be
>> another piece of pollution in the Linux knowledge base.
>>
>
>
>
>
> I would imagine every improvement brought to Linux was
> considered "pollution" at one time. I don't buy it.

Then you dont understand WHY the current setup in Linux is there. It's
not perfect but it is efficient and practical in a multi partition
system for one thing. And this is not an improvement for "linux" - it's
a silly nod in the windows direction from one minor distro in an
obviously blatant attempt to attract the dumber windows users who feel
that the location of their programmes is an important issue. It's as
clear as day to me that this is a doomed initiative and will only end in
tears.
 
Hadron wrote:

> "Sarah D." <not_valid@notvalid.address> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Having per app directory storage physically done is crazy - for a
>>> start it makes back up harder. Even if the physical files are only
>>> linked to then its a total mess.
>>>
>
>>
>> I've never had a problem doing backups at work using windose
>> servers. I don't see this as being a valid complaint. The
>> Unix/Linux world seems to be full of "purist" types that think
>> things should always be done the old way.
>
> I'm not sure you really understand why the config files are where
> they are then.
>


I was told that in the old days, disk space was at a premium and
shared libs were a way to optimize space. Part of the architecture
was done to accommodate this scare resource. It would not surprise
me to learn that other parts of Unix were designed to accommodate
other limitations (resources or knowledge) in the early 70's.

Imho, the /etc branch is ok for operating system parameters. But I
would prefer that each app is installed in it's own directory with
it's own libs. Disk space is really not an issue anymore.




>> In the beginning, getting a non-root ppp connection was considered
>> a milestone event. Thankfully, we've (mostly) moved beyond that
>> nonsense.
>
> Whatever that has to do with this thread I am not sure.
>
>>>


It's demonstrating yet another instance old tech types clinging to the
belief that the old ways were best. Imho, I think that attitude has
cost Linux serious growth and performance over the last decade.


>
>>
>>
>> I would imagine every improvement brought to Linux was
>> considered "pollution" at one time. I don't buy it.
>
> Then you dont understand WHY the current setup in Linux is there.
> It's not perfect but it is efficient and practical in a multi
> partition system for one thing. And this is not an improvement for
> "linux" - it's a silly nod in the windows direction from one minor
> distro in an obviously blatant attempt to attract the dumber windows
> users who feel that the location of their programmes is an important
> issue. It's as clear as day to me that this is a doomed initiative
> and will only end in tears.




Not everything windows is junk. Not everything 'Nix is excellent.
Imho, there is room for change in Linux and I think we would all
benefit from it.
 
>Tim Smith
>the kind of thing for which doing a new distribution is good,
>because it is a sufficient departure from other distributions.

>That said, the direction they are going seems good to me. OS X does the
>"app as a directory" approach, and it works out very well. They are
>trying an even more complete version of that, and it will be interesting
>to see what happens.

I agree with the idea that we need more Linux distributions that are truly and
significantly different, and a whole lot less Linux distros that are mostly
some other parent distro with new wallpaper, a different set of default apps
installed, and maybe a couple extra bash scripts.

That said, I would have liked to have seen this distro actually repackage the
software apps in their repository to actually be aware of, and use, this new
filesystem, rather than simply "emulating" a new filesystem with symbolic
links. That would be a much better representation of how well the idea works.
 
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:15:51 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Having per app directory storage physically done is crazy - for a start
> it makes back up harder. Even if the physical files are only linked to
> then its a total mess.

Actually, it makes it easier. Suppose you need to restore just one app.
How do you do that? You have to know every application the system
installs, every config file, every library, everything in /usr/share, etc..

With everything in an application directory, including configuration files,
then you simply restore that directory, then create the symlinks (and I
would expect a decent app would include a script to recreate its symlinks).

Then, if you want to delete it, just run the "remove symlinks" script and
delete the directory. Gone.

I think it's a better approach, although it does create a few security
issues for certain confgigurations. For instance, if you like to put your
apps on a partition that is deliberately made read-only, then having config
files inside the app directories makes life a little more difficult, but
other than such extreme cases it's not bad.

Of course it's futile in the long run, there is simply too much Unix legacy
in Linux. The only way to do this effectively would be to fork the Linux
kernel, rename it something entirely different and begin a "new platform".
That would get people in the right mindframe from the beginning, much like
Apple did.

> The current way is not perfect, but someone shouldnt really care which
> directory a program is in. The only thing you are interested in are its
> config files and we have the home dir and the /etc for that currently -
> it works, is well supported and is well documented.

Yes, it works, but change starts with someone who doesn't like the way it
works.

> This "new" setup on what will be a minor distro will simply be another
> piece of pollution in the Linux knowledge base.

That's why I suggest that for it to be successful, it really has to be a
new platform. However, this is a good testing ground.

> And what scares me the most about it is that new people to Linux might
> think "that makes sense" and use it only to discover that its at odds
> with the rest of the Linux world and that the distro makers have jumped
> ship anyway leaving them with a discarded mutant distro.

I agree, it's not for the average user, it's at best a testbed.
 
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:15:51 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Having per app directory storage physically done is crazy - for a start
>> it makes back up harder. Even if the physical files are only linked to
>> then its a total mess.
>
> Actually, it makes it easier. Suppose you need to restore just one app.
> How do you do that? You have to know every application the system
> installs, every config file, every library, everything in /usr/share,
> etc..

It makes *that* case easier.

Q: how many of you back up one app?

>
> With everything in an application directory, including configuration files,
> then you simply restore that directory, then create the symlinks (and I
> would expect a decent app would include a script to recreate its
> symlinks).

You hope.

>
> Then, if you want to delete it, just run the "remove symlinks" script and
> delete the directory. Gone.
>
> I think it's a better approach, although it does create a few security

Its a new approach at odds with the system used for years. There are not
enough advantages to make it a valid "paradigm shift".
 
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:37:43 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:15:51 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Having per app directory storage physically done is crazy - for a start
>>> it makes back up harder. Even if the physical files are only linked to
>>> then its a total mess.
>>
>> Actually, it makes it easier. Suppose you need to restore just one app.
>> How do you do that? You have to know every application the system
>> installs, every config file, every library, everything in /usr/share,
>> etc..
>
> It makes *that* case easier.
>
> Q: how many of you back up one app?

I didn't say back up one app. I said, restore one app, a much more common
scenario.

>> Then, if you want to delete it, just run the "remove symlinks" script and
>> delete the directory. Gone.
>>
>> I think it's a better approach, although it does create a few security
>
> Its a new approach at odds with the system used for years. There are not
> enough advantages to make it a valid "paradigm shift".

You ignored the rest of my message.
 
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:37:43 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:15:51 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having per app directory storage physically done is crazy - for a start
>>>> it makes back up harder. Even if the physical files are only linked to
>>>> then its a total mess.
>>>
>>> Actually, it makes it easier. Suppose you need to restore just one app.
>>> How do you do that? You have to know every application the system
>>> installs, every config file, every library, everything in /usr/share,
>>> etc..
>>
>> It makes *that* case easier.
>>
>> Q: how many of you back up one app?
>
> I didn't say back up one app. I said, restore one app, a much more common
> scenario.

Restore one app from what? A backup?

I dont want to back up binaries as a general rule. I want to back up
data and configurations.

>
>>> Then, if you want to delete it, just run the "remove symlinks" script and
>>> delete the directory. Gone.
>>>
>>> I think it's a better approach, although it does create a few security
>>
>> Its a new approach at odds with the system used for years. There are not
>> enough advantages to make it a valid "paradigm shift".
>
> You ignored the rest of my message.

No. I didn't. I just hadn't anything to comment that I haven't already said.
 
In article <fta9pe$pdi$3@registered.motzarella.org>,
Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Then you dont understand WHY the current setup in Linux is there. It's
> not perfect but it is efficient and practical in a multi partition
> system for one thing. And this is not an improvement for "linux" - it's
> a silly nod in the windows direction from one minor distro in an
> obviously blatant attempt to attract the dumber windows users who feel
> that the location of their programmes is an important issue. It's as
> clear as day to me that this is a doomed initiative and will only end in
> tears.

Why do you think it is a nod in the Windows direction? It seems to me
more a nod in the OS X direction, although it is quite a bit different
from both Windows and OS X.

--
--Tim Smith
 
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> In article <fta9pe$pdi$3@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Then you dont understand WHY the current setup in Linux is there. It's
>> not perfect but it is efficient and practical in a multi partition
>> system for one thing. And this is not an improvement for "linux" - it's
>> a silly nod in the windows direction from one minor distro in an
>> obviously blatant attempt to attract the dumber windows users who feel
>> that the location of their programmes is an important issue. It's as
>> clear as day to me that this is a doomed initiative and will only end in
>> tears.
>
> Why do you think it is a nod in the Windows direction? It seems to me
> more a nod in the OS X direction, although it is quite a bit different
> from both Windows and OS X.

I cant say I know much about OSX so can not comment. I was referring
more to the "Programs" directory setup.

What they need is a properly configurable back up utility which "knows
about" program config files.

Currently I link all config files I change to a ~/configs directory e,g
you might see ~/configs/etc/asoundrc.

It's silly. It's counter to pretty much ALL the existing setups. It's
yet more dilution and confusion. Want to do something constructive? Get
all the developers together who create and maintain the 10s of sound
systems and fight out a single solution which works across the
board. Get people to commit.


--
- "Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out
some major $$$ to develop this thing. This is a great opportunity for
alternative operating systems to intercept the ball, and run it back for a
touchdown." comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
 
Back
Top