Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
lmnk

GoboLinux

9 posts in this topic

The largest difference between GoboLinux and other distributions is its radically different filesystem. Here is a small taste copy and pasted from their website:

~] cd /
/] ls
Programs
Users
System
Files
Mount
Depot

There are directories that follow the filesystem hierarchy standard, but are hidden from view by an optional kernel modification, but the hidden directories only contain symbolic links to the new locations to maintain compatibility. More filesystem info

What do you think about this new structure?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone trying something different deserves some respect. It doesn't matter if you think it's a horrible idea, the fact that they're trying something that other people will not is a good thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of a rad idea, I won't be subscribing to it anytime soon, however. I think the only way this would really catch on, is if you make the user viewable hierarchy to match Windows, and then it's only a maybe. One of my first problems starting with Linux was "Where do I find things such as _____?"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of a rad idea, I won't be subscribing to it anytime soon, however. I think the only way this would really catch on, is if you make the user viewable hierarchy to match Windows, and then it's only a maybe. One of my first problems starting with Linux was "Where do I find things such as _____?"

What do you mean by "user viewable hierarchy to match Windows"? You want /Program Files/ or something? Since when has Linux been a Windows clone? Making a major filesystem reorganization to solve a minor newbie "problem" makes no sense at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OpenSolaris:

# ls /

Desktop

dev

home

mnt

proc

tmp

Documents

devices

kernel

net

rmdisk

usr

bin

etc

lib

opt

sbin

var

boot

export

lost+found

platform

system

vol

No comments about a Windows filesystem...

That's where we see how UNIX and Windows systems evolved.

Edited by Aghaster
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "user viewable hierarchy to match Windows"? You want /Program Files/ or something? Since when has Linux been a Windows clone? Making a major filesystem reorganization to solve a minor newbie "problem" makes no sense at all.

Nay, I don't want a Windows clone. No one says you have to reorganize it, just do sort of what Gobo is doing- keep the regular file system hierarchy to make it match the LSB, but have it hidden by the "optional kernel modification" (as mentioned in post 1), and have common Windows names linked to proper directories.

No, it's not an end-all way to make Linux noob friendly, I was just tossing out the idea. Probably not a good one, though, since symlinking /Documents and Settings to /home is probably intellectual property infringement to MS.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not an end-all way to make Linux noob friendly, I was just tossing out the idea. Probably not a good one, though, since symlinking /Documents and Settings to /home is probably intellectual property infringement to MS.

This is just silly, but I'm sure you're right about that. Microsoft is becoming silly with its "intellectual property". Can you tell me this term was invented first? The only thing I consider wrong related to intellectual property is copying something and then giving you credit for it, just like CherryOS did with PearPC. About the latest news on Microsoft embracing SuSe, I read somewhere that Microsoft said the licensing would not respect their intellectual property. I mean, Microsoft, stop whining and being a paranoid about everybody stealing the creations of your evil mind!

I really don't care if Microsoft's goal in life is to make the most money out of honest people who don't know a lot about computers. I hate them already. But things that really piss me off is having control on very widespread file formats, such as .doc, and not releasing any documentation about it. I mean, I understand that Microsoft did create the format, but no one is gonna say "hey, I created .doc, not you" and "steal" .doc. In the case of the average joe writing something in Microsoft word and then sending it to other people, his work is his intellectual property, so why should programmers be forced to reverse engineer the format first so that I can read it with some free software? The format is MS's, but not the work. Microsoft definitly should put information on formats publicly accessible, so that programmers could write better support for it faster (best example is NTFS).

Microsoft, I hate you, with your silly intellectual property.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0