I don't mind a learning curve, but unnecessary complexity should be avoided. After downloading Ximian Gnome there were missing dependencies and altered start scripts all over the directory map. This was supposed to be an automatic install. It took me most of a day to find and repair the problems so I could get a useful X back. /etc/rc.config, and /sbin/init.d are not obvious places to look. Sure, you're a genius, but normal people want Linux computers, too. I've played with Unix-like OSs since the PDP-11 in the late 70s. The best OS I used was for an Epson QX10 personal computer I got in 1982. The OS was called "Valdocs" and it ran from floppies. It was a lot like "Midnight Commander," buttons and all, and allowed descriptive naming. Drivers were easy and fun to write and assemble. Then the IBM PC and DOS took over and and made everybody a "USER". Linux uses a 1970s file naming system but the amount of software has exploded. I'm glad others are trying to update this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 6/29/01, 9:48:18 AM, Nate Carlson <natecars at real-time.com> wrote regarding Re [TCLUG] Linux directory naming system at 4.sdm: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > tclug-list mailing list > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list