Re: [TCLUG:15556] Filesystem structures

[Christopher Reid Palmer <chrisp@dusk.bitstream.net>]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Dave Sherohman wrote:

> Definitely agreed.  However, when the FS standards are based on fuzzy
> distinctions ('share' vs. 'local' vs. ''), it leads to files being scattered
> around in non-obvious locations.

I think the problem here is not really about which fs layout is best. I
think it's more to do with the limited and non-intuitive nature of
hierarchies. For example, say you have myprog-doc.html. It should be
findable by users when they look for:

  o all HTML files
  o all docs
  o myprog
  o ...
  o files written on Tuesday

So in no case is putting the file in a single directory going to be
sufficient. Somedood thinks it should go in
/usr/local/share/stuff/things/myprog/html/doc/tuesday/SPARC/myprog-doc.html,
while Somegal thinks
/usr/local/tuesday/goodies/progs/that/are/mine/myprog-doc.html is better.
Meanwhile, users will still be typing 

  $ what is going on
  bash: what: command not found
  $ please help
  ...
  $ fuck this, I'm going back to WinDOS
  bash: fuck: command not found

So, rant forever about what the best filesystem layout is. I'll be trying
to work on the doc system Nick told you all about that works around the
directory layout problem. Sure, we'll stick all the docs in dirs that we
think make sense, but ideally some tool will be available someday that
makes it a non-issue.


--
Christopher Reid Palmer : innerfireworks.com