On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Rick Engebretson wrote: > Pardon me for being dumb, but a major hurdle to learning Linux is the > directory. The file abbreviations are made for the text console and > keyboard, but with a nice GUI a descriptive name system would really > help. > > Also, the directory tree seems less than hierarcical. > > I'm using old SuSE 6.4. I've played with old and new Gnome, and old and > new KDE. The stylistic "Nautilus" and "Konqueror" are dubious file > manager improvements. > > MS Windows (since 3.0) does have a very clean directory and system > configuration structure. I realize this is an apples and oranges > comparison. But even simple configuration of Linux isn't simple. Uh, excuse me? Have you looked at all the kludge that piles up in c:\winnt lately? Can you explain what every single directory in c:\winnt does, and where you should put file(s) when you need to do things? Also, what's the point of c:, d:, e:, f:, etc? It makes so much more sense to have stuff mounted in one large namespace instead of splitting it up like that. I'll take the UNIX-style file naming system any day.. it's logical. Maybe a bit of a learning curve, but at least things generally follow some order, and you can tell why things go where they do. -- Nate Carlson <natecars at real-time.com> | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500