3 ms·

It works for me. Established also has multiple meanings, but the most applicable one here says "generally accepted" [1]. Each listed piece of software has its

by rendaw 3y ago

It works for me. Established also has multiple meanings, but the most applicable one here says "generally accepted" [1]. Each listed piece of software has its own way of doing things, so speaking of _the_ established practice is wrong here, and I doubt I'd be able to list more than one of those off the top of my head, so _established_ hardly seems appropriate. And whether you agree with it or not, I doubt anyone understands "desktop" as meaning "GUI only" and not "for human users" in this context. I usually see it used contrastively as in "desktop" vs "server". Server software lives in `/usr` and writes to `/run` and `/var`, etc. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/established https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/established

toast0 3y ago
> And whether you agree with it or not, I doubt anyone understands "desktop" as meaning "GUI only" and not "for human users" in this context. Config files don't apply to only human users either, though. Automation also uses configs. And they've got to be somewhere. Some automation is desktop oriented, I'll acknowledge. If this standard came from Posix, sure, that applies generally across unix and linux to all programs great and small. If it comes from Linux Standards Base, I've got issues, cause I don't run Linux, but that at least clearly applies to all programs on Linux, packaged by a distribution and configuration file locations are obviously within the scope of LSB. But XDG is more or less the Xorg/Freedesktop peeps; how are config files for everything under the sun in their scope? There's lots of stuff in their scope, but this just seems out of the blue. Being not an exclusively Linux organization is somewhat helpful, but still. How is the XDG an authority on where to place config files when there was already a servicable location to put them (and the specification documentation doesn't even have a discussion of who they are, why their spec matters, how the values came to be, etc)
- delta_p_delta_x 3y ago
  > How is the XDG an authority I addressed this in the article: Linux devs not being able to accept some authority—in this case, XDG—is the source of the fragmentation in Linux and why even though we have a spec, there's still a solid 30%+ of programs that don't follow it. Yes, OpenSSH isn't a 'desktop' program, but there are dozens of desktop programs which use it as a backend. Forget Linux, for a moment: it creates `.ssh`on Windows. Windows doesn't have dot-files, and it never had. This is arrogance.
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    >Yes, OpenSSH isn't a 'desktop' program, but there are dozens of desktop programs which use it as a backend. Forget Linux, for a moment: it creates `.ssh`on Windows. Windows doesn't have dot-files, and it never had. This is arrogance. I would say this is rather consistency accross OS. Every openssh user knows where to find its config regardless of the OS, if it follows XDG, windows guidelines or if it is running on Haiku, SerenityOS, Redox or RiscOS. There are plenty of windows specific ssh clients that follow Microsoft guidelines.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    I'm curious about this angle. I think you're correct, that volunteer developers contributing their code from their free time are reticent to submit to an outside entity telling them how to write their code. But I'm not seeing how that's a problem. One of the beautiful things about the Bazaar is that if you don't like one part of it, you can move to another where they do things a bit differently. If everyone is deferring to an authority, upon what virtues and rigors do we determine its validity? What powers does it have, and why should we just blindly follow others in one of the most creative human endeavors available on Earth? Why should one accept authority? Where does the power of this authority come from? I have similar ideas in society fwiw. I don't see a moral reason to defer to someone else. Is my will less important than the preferences of some other person or group? As long as it's my time and effort being put into making software, it'll be built to the specification of me and any legitimate stakeholders.
    - delta_p_delta_x 3y ago
      > I have similar ideas in society fwiw. I don't see a moral reason to defer to someone else My opinions are probably a result of how and where I was raised. That being said, I don't claim we should defer to authority for authority's sake. Authority is given by the people. In the case of the XDG Base Directories, for instance, I believe the specification is well-laid-out. It has gained enough traction and enough developers adhere to it that it has authority of its own accord: by accepting the specification, developers have voted to give XDG that authority. That is how it works in democracies, no?

by rendaw 3y ago

toast0 3y ago

> And whether you agree with it or not, I doubt anyone understands "desktop" as meaning "GUI only" and not "for human users" in this context. Config files don't apply to only human users either, though. Automation also uses configs. And they've got to be somewhere. Some automation is desktop oriented, I'll acknowledge. If this standard came from Posix, sure, that applies generally across unix and linux to all programs great and small. If it comes from Linux Standards Base, I've got issues, cause I don't run Linux, but that at least clearly applies to all programs on Linux, packaged by a distribution and configuration file locations are obviously within the scope of LSB. But XDG is more or less the Xorg/Freedesktop peeps; how are config files for everything under the sun in their scope? There's lots of stuff in their scope, but this just seems out of the blue. Being not an exclusively Linux organization is somewhat helpful, but still. How is the XDG an authority on where to place config files when there was already a servicable location to put them (and the specification documentation doesn't even have a discussion of who they are, why their spec matters, how the values came to be, etc)

delta_p_delta_x 3y ago
> How is the XDG an authority I addressed this in the article: Linux devs not being able to accept some authority—in this case, XDG—is the source of the fragmentation in Linux and why even though we have a spec, there's still a solid 30%+ of programs that don't follow it. Yes, OpenSSH isn't a 'desktop' program, but there are dozens of desktop programs which use it as a backend. Forget Linux, for a moment: it creates `.ssh`on Windows. Windows doesn't have dot-files, and it never had. This is arrogance.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  >Yes, OpenSSH isn't a 'desktop' program, but there are dozens of desktop programs which use it as a backend. Forget Linux, for a moment: it creates `.ssh`on Windows. Windows doesn't have dot-files, and it never had. This is arrogance. I would say this is rather consistency accross OS. Every openssh user knows where to find its config regardless of the OS, if it follows XDG, windows guidelines or if it is running on Haiku, SerenityOS, Redox or RiscOS. There are plenty of windows specific ssh clients that follow Microsoft guidelines.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  I'm curious about this angle. I think you're correct, that volunteer developers contributing their code from their free time are reticent to submit to an outside entity telling them how to write their code. But I'm not seeing how that's a problem. One of the beautiful things about the Bazaar is that if you don't like one part of it, you can move to another where they do things a bit differently. If everyone is deferring to an authority, upon what virtues and rigors do we determine its validity? What powers does it have, and why should we just blindly follow others in one of the most creative human endeavors available on Earth? Why should one accept authority? Where does the power of this authority come from? I have similar ideas in society fwiw. I don't see a moral reason to defer to someone else. Is my will less important than the preferences of some other person or group? As long as it's my time and effort being put into making software, it'll be built to the specification of me and any legitimate stakeholders.
  - delta_p_delta_x 3y ago
    > I have similar ideas in society fwiw. I don't see a moral reason to defer to someone else My opinions are probably a result of how and where I was raised. That being said, I don't claim we should defer to authority for authority's sake. Authority is given by the people. In the case of the XDG Base Directories, for instance, I believe the specification is well-laid-out. It has gained enough traction and enough developers adhere to it that it has authority of its own accord: by accepting the specification, developers have voted to give XDG that authority. That is how it works in democracies, no?