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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb
  • Start date Start date
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 20:04:54 +0200, Hadron wrote:

>>> 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.

I used to do that as well, but then I came across a situation where I could
no longer get ahold of the version of the app that was installed, and the
configuration file had changed, so I ended up having to reconfigure it.
It's just easier now to backup the apps as well as the configuration, one
step for restore, and since the apps won't change, they will only get
backed up once and not on differentials.
 
Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:ftb1pc$e25$1@registered.motzarella.org:

> 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".

So what you are saying is that Linux needs to be vastly improved before
it can gain wide acceptance, but at the same time......

.......you can't change anything that might make it easier for new user's
to come on board and be able to learn a new OS.

Quite the paradox I'd say.
 
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
> architecture which is totally against every linux document out there and
> fixing apps which simply do not work.

That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?
 
netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:

> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
>> architecture which is totally against every linux document out there and
>> fixing apps which simply do not work.
>
> That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
> Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?

I don't know what you are talking about. But if the sum of your
contribution is to point out my typo of "hacks" then, err, well done.

--
XP can't be selling well, or we'd have the wintrolls crowing about it all
over the advocacy newsgroups.
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
 
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:48:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
>>> architecture which is totally against every linux document out there
>>> and fixing apps which simply do not work.
>>
>> That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
>> Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?
>
> I don't know what you are talking about. But if the sum of your
> contribution is to point out my typo of "hacks" then, err, well done.

Couldn't care less about typo's since I make enough of them myself. I'm
merely laughing at your hypocrisy.
 
netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:

> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:48:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
>>>> architecture which is totally against every linux document out there
>>>> and fixing apps which simply do not work.
>>>
>>> That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
>>> Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?
>>
>> I don't know what you are talking about. But if the sum of your
>> contribution is to point out my typo of "hacks" then, err, well done.
>
> Couldn't care less about typo's since I make enough of them myself. I'm
> merely laughing at your hypocrisy.

Using a word for the sake of it keeps you amused? What hypocrisy are you
referring to?

--
If you take both of those factors together then WinXP is a flop, selling
*less* than Win 98 by a factor of two.
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they the lunacy in advocacy
 
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:35:42 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:48:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
>>>>> architecture which is totally against every linux document out there
>>>>> and fixing apps which simply do not work.
>>>>
>>>> That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
>>>> Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?
>>>
>>> I don't know what you are talking about. But if the sum of your
>>> contribution is to point out my typo of "hacks" then, err, well done.
>>
>> Couldn't care less about typo's since I make enough of them myself. I'm
>> merely laughing at your hypocrisy.
>
> Using a word for the sake of it keeps you amused?

You used it first.

> What hypocrisy are you referring to?

Yours.
 
netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:

> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:35:42 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:48:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
>>>>>> architecture which is totally against every linux document out there
>>>>>> and fixing apps which simply do not work.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
>>>>> Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what you are talking about. But if the sum of your
>>>> contribution is to point out my typo of "hacks" then, err, well done.
>>>
>>> Couldn't care less about typo's since I make enough of them myself. I'm
>>> merely laughing at your hypocrisy.
>>
>> Using a word for the sake of it keeps you amused?
>
> You used it first.
>
>> What hypocrisy are you referring to?
>
> Yours.
>

Please elaborate. At the moment you are doing a Tatto Vamp/HPT/Liarnut -
e.g just making things up to suit your agenda.
 
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:39:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:35:42 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:48:11 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:36:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a huge difference between implementing a new file layout
>>>>>>> architecture which is totally against every linux document out
>>>>>>> there and fixing apps which simply do not work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would be a "leet hyck" and inconsistent with existing linuces.
>>>>>> Inconsistencies and "leet hycks" aren't allowed, remember?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know what you are talking about. But if the sum of your
>>>>> contribution is to point out my typo of "hacks" then, err, well
>>>>> done.
>>>>
>>>> Couldn't care less about typo's since I make enough of them myself.
>>>> I'm merely laughing at your hypocrisy.
>>>
>>> Using a word for the sake of it keeps you amused?
>>
>> You used it first.
>>
>>> What hypocrisy are you referring to?
>>
>> Yours.
>>
>>
> Please elaborate. At the moment you are doing a Tatto Vamp/HPT/Liarnut -
> e.g just making things up to suit your agenda.

Like them, I'm having fun at your expense. If you don't get it then that
just makes it even funnier. :)
 
Hadron wrote:
> netcat writes:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> What hypocrisy are you referring to?
>>
>> Yours.
>
> Please elaborate. At the moment you are doing a Tatto Vamp/HPT/Liarnut -
> e.g just making things up to suit your agenda.

"LOL Indeed. Of course I troll sometimes. I never denied it. One has
to when dealing with loonies like Willy Boaster and his amazing
killfiles." - Hadron
comp.os.linux.advocacy
Message-ID: n145s4-517.ln1@news.individual.net

--
HPT
 
Back
Top