Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on November 04, 2005 10:41 AM
Gobo's authors thought the traditional Unix directory tree was unsuitable for a modern desktop Linux distribution and decided to take the path that another desktop-oriented operating systems has been following for years -- namely, Mac OS X.
Gobo's approach and the Mac OS X approach are vastly different. It's only the end result, a simplified filesystem for the casual user, that's similar.
OS X uses a very traditional (though not completely FHS compliant) Unix file hierarchy, with a few additions (like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Applications for appfolders). It also sets up a set of standard folders in your home directory (~/Music, ~/Pictures, etc.). The traditional Unix directories like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr are present, but hidden in the default user interface (get to a terminal and you'll find them). So Unixish software will compile and run without special tweaking, but typical non-expert users get a simple, readable, understandable file system - Applications, Music, Pictures, etc.
Gobo doesn't keep an FHS hierarchy at all, nor anything resembling one. It uses its own, custom, simplified hierarchy from top to bottom. Many, many programs refuse to compile or run with that odd hierarchy. So Gobo patches the programs. To help massage some particularly stubborn apps into running on Gobo, invisible symlinks named after a few standard locations like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sbin are used which link to the real locations. But they don't actually exist, and only a few directories are simulated in this way.
Two very different approaches. Many would say that Gobo's approach is more "pure" and attempts to fix, rather than hide, the confusing nature of the Unix filesystem for non-technical users. But it's a troublesome, unfamiliar mess for developers - and, point of fact, it breaks software (though Gobo probably has a point that apps shouldn't be relying on hardcoded paths anyway, even if they are standard Unix paths relied upon for decades). Perhaps Apple's approach, while it is a bit more of a kludge or paint-job, is a better idea. Sure, it's less "pure," but there's no muss or fuss for developers or technical users compiling apps. All the traditional stuff is still there, in the traditional locations, just hidden from the prying eyes of inexperienced users. The author's seeming unawareness of this difference is perhaps the best evidence of Apple's success in creating the illusion of a simplified hierarchy.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Nothing like Mac OS X filesystem
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 04, 2005 10:41 AMGobo's approach and the Mac OS X approach are vastly different. It's only the end result, a simplified filesystem for the casual user, that's similar.
OS X uses a very traditional (though not completely FHS compliant) Unix file hierarchy, with a few additions (like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Applications for appfolders). It also sets up a set of standard folders in your home directory (~/Music, ~/Pictures, etc.). The traditional Unix directories like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr are present, but hidden in the default user interface (get to a terminal and you'll find them). So Unixish software will compile and run without special tweaking, but typical non-expert users get a simple, readable, understandable file system - Applications, Music, Pictures, etc.
Gobo doesn't keep an FHS hierarchy at all, nor anything resembling one. It uses its own, custom, simplified hierarchy from top to bottom. Many, many programs refuse to compile or run with that odd hierarchy. So Gobo patches the programs. To help massage some particularly stubborn apps into running on Gobo, invisible symlinks named after a few standard locations like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sbin are used which link to the real locations. But they don't actually exist, and only a few directories are simulated in this way.
Two very different approaches. Many would say that Gobo's approach is more "pure" and attempts to fix, rather than hide, the confusing nature of the Unix filesystem for non-technical users. But it's a troublesome, unfamiliar mess for developers - and, point of fact, it breaks software (though Gobo probably has a point that apps shouldn't be relying on hardcoded paths anyway, even if they are standard Unix paths relied upon for decades). Perhaps Apple's approach, while it is a bit more of a kludge or paint-job, is a better idea. Sure, it's less "pure," but there's no muss or fuss for developers or technical users compiling apps. All the traditional stuff is still there, in the traditional locations, just hidden from the prying eyes of inexperienced users. The author's seeming unawareness of this difference is perhaps the best evidence of Apple's success in creating the illusion of a simplified hierarchy.
#