3 ms·

>What's the point of hiding some of the files in a directory from user? It only makes things more confusing. If a user doesn't know what .ssh/ or .bash_history

>What's the point of hiding some of the files in a directory from user? It only makes things more confusing. If a user doesn't know what .ssh/ or .bash_history are, and it can hurt them to accidentally delete or modify them, why show them by default? It's like training wheels on a bike. >For example the folder might look empty but in fact it could contain thousands of hidden files. You want to delete it as it is empty but accidentally delete important system files. If it is possible for a regular user to accidentally brick a system like this, it was doomed to begin with. If a user doesn't know what a dotfile is they shouldn't have administrative privileges, and if they do get them there is no safeguard to stop them destroying the system. It's not a dotfile issue. >Imagine if you have a project and want to edit an .env file. But as dotfiles are hidden in Linux you don't see this file and cannot open it. It turns out that Windows Explorer which doesn't hide dotfiles is much better for developing projects with Docker! In what reality is someone developing software and building Docker containers who doesn't understand the concept of hidden files? Seems awfully contrived.

jl6 4y ago
> If a user doesn't know what .ssh/ or .bash_history are, and it can hurt them to accidentally delete or modify them, why show them by default? It's like training wheels on a bike. This is really the problem with the home directory. It’s supposed to be the place where the user puts their files, but it’s also a place where applications put their files, usually without asking the user. The battle is lost - the home directory territory should be ceded to applications and the user should have a separate space in which to manage their files. This can sort of be achieved with the $XDG_CONFIG_HOME environment variable, but not all software respects it, so in practical terms it’s a lot easier just to leave $HOME to be the application config dumping ground.
- delta_p_delta_x 4y ago
  It kind of goes around to the same point: developers are sloppy and assume that ~ or %USERPROFILE% has full read-write permissions, and treat the corresponding home directories as a free-for-all dumping ground.
- medstrom 4y ago
  Yes! I did that long ago, putting my stuff in /home/kept/. I'm surprised at everyone who still puts their files in ~. What a mess.
codedokode 4y ago
> If a user doesn't know what .ssh/ or .bash_history are, and it can hurt them to accidentally delete or modify them, why show them by default? Because they are there. To prevent accidental deletion you can show an icon with a skull and crossbones or name a directory "configuration files" so that it is obvious what's in there. > if they do get them there is no safeguard to stop them destroying the system If the folder are named or labeled as "operating system" then the user will probably understand that it is better not to mess with it. > In what reality is someone developing software and building Docker containers who doesn't understand the concept of hidden files? Hiding hidden files is annoying because you have to add -a to ls command, have to add an option in Bash to include then when matching against a star pattern and to configure Explorer so that it shows them. It would be easier without them.
- Iamreadingthehn 4y ago
  > To prevent accidental deletion you can show an icon with a skull and crossbones This will make users more likely to delete it thinking it's a virus. > If the folder are named or labeled as "operating system" then the user will probably understand that it is better not to mess with it. Big assumption that most people know what an operating system is.
- hrbf 4y ago
  > Hiding hidden files is annoying because you have to add -a to ls command Have you ever heard of aliases?
  - codedokode 4y ago
    You are suggesting a workaround instead of solving the original problem.
    - hrbf 4y ago
      The workaround is trivial and painless, whereas “solving the original problem” would require fundamental changes to decades-old systems conventions. I was responding to the “annoying” part, which is effectively solved using an alias.
nephrite 4y ago
> If a user doesn't know what .ssh/ or .bash_history are, and it can hurt them to accidentally delete or modify them, why show them by default? It's like training wheels on a bike. You have permissions to prevent from accidental deletions.

jl6 4y ago

> If a user doesn't know what .ssh/ or .bash_history are, and it can hurt them to accidentally delete or modify them, why show them by default? It's like training wheels on a bike. This is really the problem with the home directory. It’s supposed to be the place where the user puts their files, but it’s also a place where applications put their files, usually without asking the user. The battle is lost - the home directory territory should be ceded to applications and the user should have a separate space in which to manage their files. This can sort of be achieved with the $XDG_CONFIG_HOME environment variable, but not all software respects it, so in practical terms it’s a lot easier just to leave $HOME to be the application config dumping ground.

delta_p_delta_x 4y ago
It kind of goes around to the same point: developers are sloppy and assume that ~ or %USERPROFILE% has full read-write permissions, and treat the corresponding home directories as a free-for-all dumping ground.
medstrom 4y ago
Yes! I did that long ago, putting my stuff in /home/kept/. I'm surprised at everyone who still puts their files in ~. What a mess.

codedokode 4y ago

> If a user doesn't know what .ssh/ or .bash_history are, and it can hurt them to accidentally delete or modify them, why show them by default? Because they are there. To prevent accidental deletion you can show an icon with a skull and crossbones or name a directory "configuration files" so that it is obvious what's in there. > if they do get them there is no safeguard to stop them destroying the system If the folder are named or labeled as "operating system" then the user will probably understand that it is better not to mess with it. > In what reality is someone developing software and building Docker containers who doesn't understand the concept of hidden files? Hiding hidden files is annoying because you have to add -a to ls command, have to add an option in Bash to include then when matching against a star pattern and to configure Explorer so that it shows them. It would be easier without them.

Iamreadingthehn 4y ago
> To prevent accidental deletion you can show an icon with a skull and crossbones This will make users more likely to delete it thinking it's a virus. > If the folder are named or labeled as "operating system" then the user will probably understand that it is better not to mess with it. Big assumption that most people know what an operating system is.
hrbf 4y ago
> Hiding hidden files is annoying because you have to add -a to ls command Have you ever heard of aliases?
- codedokode 4y ago
  You are suggesting a workaround instead of solving the original problem.
  - hrbf 4y ago
    The workaround is trivial and painless, whereas “solving the original problem” would require fundamental changes to decades-old systems conventions. I was responding to the “annoying” part, which is effectively solved using an alias.

nephrite 4y ago

> If a user doesn't know what .ssh/ or .bash_history are, and it can hurt them to accidentally delete or modify them, why show them by default? It's like training wheels on a bike. You have permissions to prevent from accidental deletions.