
Thread beginning with comment 327874
To view parent comment, click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Luminair
by dagw on Mon 25th Aug 2008 11:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Luminair"
Member since:

making the file system easier to work with will affect every upstream software, from package managers to Open File dialogs.

Sure, but dumping all binaries in a a single folder? Also do you consider libraries to binaries? Are plug-ins binaries, libraries or something else?

Where is smb.conf on my computer? Can you help me with it? File search says there are two. Do you know why?

Yes. Of course you could argue that most people shouldn't need to care where smb.conf is located, or even what smb.conf even is. They should be using supplied tools to interact with that file. Those who actually need to edit smb.conf by hand should be knowledgeable enough about what they're doing to know which smb.conf file they should be editing. Otherwise they stand a good chance of breaking their system.

Come on, give me a break. The complexity of the linux file system design is causing headaches in places we cannot even comprehend.

That complexity also gives power and flexibility that some people need. There are situations where you actually want several smb.conf files. Admittedly most people don't, but those who do should still have the option. One of Linux's strength is that complex and uncommon configurations are relatively easy to pull of compared to for example Windows. Any improvements made, should be made without sacrificing this strength.

But I agree that things could be a lot better. However we shouldn't simplify things to the point where the uncommon, yet occasionally useful, configurations become impossible.
Holy shit, lets get some standards that make sense.

Again I agree, but dumping everything into one folder isn't the solution. Things are a bit of a mess, but a flatter file system with everything in one folder isn't the solution.

Reply Parent Score: 2