5 ms·

No moralising here. I'm directly calling out developers who are completely okay with writing thousands of lines of code from scratch for a fancy new feature, bu

No moralising here. I'm directly calling out developers who are completely okay with writing thousands of lines of code from scratch for a fancy new feature, but can't be bothered to directly lift proper directory handling code from other open-source projects and reuse it almost verbatim. Like I said: it's easy to just dump stuff in $HOME. It's a lot harder to properly handle paths, but it should be done anyway to be a good citizen. Ideally: check for a legacy path; if it doesn't exist, check for XDG paths; if that doesn't exist, create and use XDG paths. If a legacy path exists, notify the user of a migration and either warn them to do it, or attempt to do it for the user. I really wonder how many programs will immediately break if I suddenly set my home directory permissions to 0100.

rcoveson 3y ago
How is lampooning people who disagree with you as "arrogant" not moralizing? Arrogance is a moral accusation. This isn't a problem where you can just copy and paste a deductively-proven-correct-for-all-inputs solution and be done. One way or another you're creating problems for existing users and existing scripts as soon as you start using the new location. A newly provisioned system with an old script (or an old user (and "old" meaning nothing more than "older than this change")) running on it is going to end up thinking that it's doing a create-or-modify on, say,`.bashrc`, when in fact it's doing an override (because existing config was in the new location). "Ignorance" is being blind to that problem (and others). "Arrogance" is pretending like it's somehow obvious that that problem isn't worse than the benefits of unifying on this convention, especially when there are so many examples of estimable projects on both sides of the issue.
- JoBrad 3y ago
  The arrogance is pretending that user configs and wishes can be arbitrarily dismissed because you can’t be bothered to adhere to them. My computer is mine, not the app maker’s.
  - rcoveson 3y ago
    You're assuming your concerns were dismissed arbitrarily. Why? Is it possible that your concerns were considered, pros and cons were weighed, and the final decision was simply not in your favor? And what's this nonsense about "my computer, not the app maker's"? How do you think project governance works? Decisions are made, and every single time a subset of users are disappointed. That subset isn't having control of their computers taken from them. This stuff is happening out in the open, for free, and with express permission to override any behavior you want with your own patches. You can even distribute your patched version, also free of charge. It's downright humbling how free we are when it comes to bash and OpenSSH, and you have the gall to come out with "My computer is mind, not the app maker's"? Do you have any idea how low the bar is for user respect in the average app? How much money can be made if you're willing to disrespect your users? And the bash and OpenSSH folks would never, not ever consider any such breach. They have stayed firm, despite world-blanketing success, in their user-respecting free software ways. And for a disagreement of where to put config files, you'd lump them in with the user-hating rabble that makes up the rest of the software industry. We're surrounded by people who actually do arbitrarily dismiss user concerns (because the users are the product). People who actually do believe your computer belongs to them when you use their software. Please, in the middle of all this shit, keep in mind who your best allies are and just have a civil engineering disagreement with them, without insulting them.
    - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
      >Is it possible that your concerns were considered, pros and cons were weighed, and the final decision was simply not in your favor? // Could you give a couple of example reasons why a developer would choose to ignore community standards here?
      - tsimionescu 3y ago
        As has already been pointed out, plenty of existing scripts and users know that SSH keys and other configs are in $HOME/.ssh/. If OpenSSH moved to XDG, such a script or user would come to a new machine using XDG and not be able to find the SSH configurations. A user might be able to learn where they are, but a script wouldn't. Similarly for .bashrc. Given how often tools like bash and ssh are used programmatically and not just interactively, it is very much conceivable that the right choice, the one that brings the least amount of harm to their users, for bash and OpenSSH is to stick to their existing conventions forever. I should also note that $HOME/.program-name is very much a community standard that the XDG people decided to move away from. Or at least it used to be.
skywhopper 3y ago
You’re making a lot of assumptions here, like that paths to config files are used by only one program, or that there’s an interactive way to prompt a user on every run, or that XDG’s extremely limited config options suit every user’s desires. Sorry, but this is not an “easy” problem, especially not for existing widely used tools like OpenSSH.

rcoveson 3y ago

How is lampooning people who disagree with you as "arrogant" not moralizing? Arrogance is a moral accusation. This isn't a problem where you can just copy and paste a deductively-proven-correct-for-all-inputs solution and be done. One way or another you're creating problems for existing users and existing scripts as soon as you start using the new location. A newly provisioned system with an old script (or an old user (and "old" meaning nothing more than "older than this change")) running on it is going to end up thinking that it's doing a create-or-modify on, say,`.bashrc`, when in fact it's doing an override (because existing config was in the new location). "Ignorance" is being blind to that problem (and others). "Arrogance" is pretending like it's somehow obvious that that problem isn't worse than the benefits of unifying on this convention, especially when there are so many examples of estimable projects on both sides of the issue.

JoBrad 3y ago
The arrogance is pretending that user configs and wishes can be arbitrarily dismissed because you can’t be bothered to adhere to them. My computer is mine, not the app maker’s.
- rcoveson 3y ago
  You're assuming your concerns were dismissed arbitrarily. Why? Is it possible that your concerns were considered, pros and cons were weighed, and the final decision was simply not in your favor? And what's this nonsense about "my computer, not the app maker's"? How do you think project governance works? Decisions are made, and every single time a subset of users are disappointed. That subset isn't having control of their computers taken from them. This stuff is happening out in the open, for free, and with express permission to override any behavior you want with your own patches. You can even distribute your patched version, also free of charge. It's downright humbling how free we are when it comes to bash and OpenSSH, and you have the gall to come out with "My computer is mind, not the app maker's"? Do you have any idea how low the bar is for user respect in the average app? How much money can be made if you're willing to disrespect your users? And the bash and OpenSSH folks would never, not ever consider any such breach. They have stayed firm, despite world-blanketing success, in their user-respecting free software ways. And for a disagreement of where to put config files, you'd lump them in with the user-hating rabble that makes up the rest of the software industry. We're surrounded by people who actually do arbitrarily dismiss user concerns (because the users are the product). People who actually do believe your computer belongs to them when you use their software. Please, in the middle of all this shit, keep in mind who your best allies are and just have a civil engineering disagreement with them, without insulting them.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    >Is it possible that your concerns were considered, pros and cons were weighed, and the final decision was simply not in your favor? // Could you give a couple of example reasons why a developer would choose to ignore community standards here?
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      As has already been pointed out, plenty of existing scripts and users know that SSH keys and other configs are in $HOME/.ssh/. If OpenSSH moved to XDG, such a script or user would come to a new machine using XDG and not be able to find the SSH configurations. A user might be able to learn where they are, but a script wouldn't. Similarly for .bashrc. Given how often tools like bash and ssh are used programmatically and not just interactively, it is very much conceivable that the right choice, the one that brings the least amount of harm to their users, for bash and OpenSSH is to stick to their existing conventions forever. I should also note that $HOME/.program-name is very much a community standard that the XDG people decided to move away from. Or at least it used to be.

skywhopper 3y ago

You’re making a lot of assumptions here, like that paths to config files are used by only one program, or that there’s an interactive way to prompt a user on every run, or that XDG’s extremely limited config options suit every user’s desires. Sorry, but this is not an “easy” problem, especially not for existing widely used tools like OpenSSH.