4 ms·

Is finding applications on the fs a big problem people actually have?

hnarn 6y ago
I read the "At a glance" documentation and came upon this: > /bin is a link to /System/Index/bin. And as a matter of fact, so is /usr/bin. And /usr/sbin... all "binaries" directories map to the same place. Amusingly, this makes us even more compatible than some more standard-looking distributions. This just feels wrong to me. I appreciate that Linux is all about choice, but I really wouldn't want this.
- aktuel 6y ago
  Why?
drdaeman 6y ago
It's not about finding applications, it's more about the ability to have multiple versions of the same package installed and used concurrently. Best you can have with FHS is something like /usr/bin/python3.8 vs /usr/bin/python3.9, and this requires package maintainers to manually support this. Most packages don't do this, so if you happen to need - just a random example - an ancient Firefox version installed separately, "traditional" solutions like rpm or dpkg won't really help you. Plus, a different organization of the filesystem, where everything that belongs to a package is stored under the same base path, rather than being spread across the whole FS. I don't really remember GoboLinux ideas, but IIRC they had something about leveraging use of the filesystem as a part of package manager.
- SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
  The better way to do this is to use flatpak. The sandboxing will be a major benefit for your ancient firefox version as well.
kelnos 6y ago
Yeah, I don't think that's a problem I ever run into. Also they claim: > Say goodbye to the old problem of having the package manager complain that libXYZ is not installed even though you can see that it is there. That is... also a problem I have never had. I like the idea of GoboLinux just for giving a new take on something more streamlined (because yes, the FHS and de-facto systems before it have accumulated a lot of cruft), but I think it would be more productive for the GoboLinux folks to advocate for their system based on its own merits, not on semi-imagined faults of the more common system. Being able to have multiple versions of programs and their dependencies (which would help avoid dependency hell) installed is a big thing! That alone is a really nice benefit of GoboLinux's system.

I read the "At a glance" documentation and came upon this: > /bin is a link to /System/Index/bin. And as a matter of fact, so is /usr/bin. And /usr/sbin... all "binaries" directories map to the same place. Amusingly, this makes us even more compatible than some more standard-looking distributions. This just feels wrong to me. I appreciate that Linux is all about choice, but I really wouldn't want this.

aktuel 6y ago
Why?

drdaeman 6y ago

It's not about finding applications, it's more about the ability to have multiple versions of the same package installed and used concurrently. Best you can have with FHS is something like /usr/bin/python3.8 vs /usr/bin/python3.9, and this requires package maintainers to manually support this. Most packages don't do this, so if you happen to need - just a random example - an ancient Firefox version installed separately, "traditional" solutions like rpm or dpkg won't really help you. Plus, a different organization of the filesystem, where everything that belongs to a package is stored under the same base path, rather than being spread across the whole FS. I don't really remember GoboLinux ideas, but IIRC they had something about leveraging use of the filesystem as a part of package manager.

SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
The better way to do this is to use flatpak. The sandboxing will be a major benefit for your ancient firefox version as well.

kelnos 6y ago

Yeah, I don't think that's a problem I ever run into. Also they claim: > Say goodbye to the old problem of having the package manager complain that libXYZ is not installed even though you can see that it is there. That is... also a problem I have never had. I like the idea of GoboLinux just for giving a new take on something more streamlined (because yes, the FHS and de-facto systems before it have accumulated a lot of cruft), but I think it would be more productive for the GoboLinux folks to advocate for their system based on its own merits, not on semi-imagined faults of the more common system. Being able to have multiple versions of programs and their dependencies (which would help avoid dependency hell) installed is a big thing! That alone is a really nice benefit of GoboLinux's system.