5 ms·

Author here: It was abandoned. I linked to one of the former maintainers who said as much. The current effort is by a few people who asked the LF to take out ov

by jzb 1y ago

Author here: It was abandoned. I linked to one of the former maintainers who said as much. The current effort is by a few people who asked the LF to take out over, and have (so far) done little after an initial flurry of activity. That, too, is covered in the other article I wrote about the FHS recently. Prior to the group who started an update effort, it had not been touched in about a decade. That’s not slow-moving: that’s abandoned.

upofadown 1y ago
The FHS ultimately belongs to the users collectively, not those maintaining it. I am old enough to remember the horror that existed before the influence of the FHS. It exists in the fact that it is to some extent respected, not because there is a file somewhere that says it is the FHS standard. If you want changes, then sure, do the politics required to develop support for those changes. You can't just declare a new standard and then do whatever you want. Developers have this thing where they will think of a standard as a specification. Instead it is a statement of political will. Saying that a standard is "abandoned" due to lack of "maintenance" seems like an example of thinking of a standard as the instantation of a specification; an actual program.
- dijit 1y ago
  I know it's not the same, but imagine thinking a law is not longer meant to be followed because it hasn't been updated in 10 years.
  - Arubis 1y ago
    I agree--given your contraints of law and 10 years. But what about a law that hasn't been updated for 150 years? There's plenty of those that we regularly ignore. What's the timeline for software?
    - dijit 1y ago
      There is no automatic, fixed timeframe after which a law simply stops being followed because it hasn't been updated or looked at; and remember, we're still applying the FHS, it's in active use even if it's not updated. Laws remain in force until they are formally: * Repealed (abolished) by the relevant legislative body (Parliament, Congress, etc.). * Struck down by a court as unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. A 150 year "delete" timer would genuinely undermine the foundation of the legal system. Lawyers, judges, and businesses rely on the continuity of core laws (e.g., contract, property, and tax law). If a 150-year-old property law suddenly lapsed, it could instantly void millions of land titles and commercial contracts...
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - MrJohz 1y ago
        There are other reasons as well. The body responsible for enforcing a particular law can choose not to enforce it, thereby rendering the law useless. Or a law can become obsolete by changes in technology or society - the original law legislates something that just doesn't happen any more, say. Laws can also be written to handle a specific event that only occurs once. Once that event has passed, the law might as well not exist. It doesn't need to be repealed because it just doesn't apply any more. In addition, laws are typically regularly amended to handle new societal developments, to clarify wording, or to fit better with other laws or changes in attitudes. A law that has gone 150 years without being amended at all is probably a law that falls into the categories above and is obsolete. Of course, all this is getting somewhat off-topic, but the point is that laws absolutely can become outdated and unmaintained, either deliberately or by happenstance. And the inverse is also true: most laws that people deal with regularly are kept up-to-date to ensure that they still reflect the needs and wills of the society they're being used in.
      - crote 1y ago
        > Laws remain in force until they are formally: * Struck down by a court as unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. False. They are still in force - they have just become unenforceable. There's a crucial difference, as the US is currently finding out: as long as they are in the books, a Supreme Court decision can instantly render them enforceable again - even against the wishes of the population. The proper thing to do would be to "garbage collect" unenforceable laws, but politicians are (understandably) hesitant to spend political capital on it when it doesn't provide any tangible return.
    - divegeek 1y ago
      Much of the US/UK legal system is based on common-law rules that are several hundred years old. In some cases those old laws have been codified, in some cases not, but either way there's no need to drop them just because they're old. On the contrary, laws that have stood that long without needing to be changed have demonstrated that they are extraordinarily good ideas.
      - avianlyric 1y ago
        I’m not sure point to the UK is a good example. There are plenty of weird and obscure laws that simply aren’t enforced or followed anymore. Everything from laws about handling salmon suspiciously, through to various right around who can drive sheep across Tower Bridge. Those laws survive not because anyone considers them a good idea, but simply because the issues caused by ignoring them are substantially smaller than the effort involved in removing them. We also have a bunch of laws that are still followed, but only in the most technical sense. Every “Parliament route” train schedule falls into that category. Train services that must be provided at least once a day, sometimes only once a week, which nobody actually uses, and in some cases only travel to stations with no practical public entrances. Those laws don’t survive because anyone things they’re a good idea, it’s just easier to run the train, than it is to get parliament time to abolish the law.
    - ikiris 1y ago
      How often does "thou shall not kill" need an update?
      - knowitnone3 1y ago
        Not even in defense of your own life, family, others? You have a lot of people on HN that celebrate killing of then innocent.
        wakawaka28 1y ago
        Obviously the intent was "Thou shall not murder anyone"... Interpreting it otherwise doesn't make sense, and is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.
        immibis 1y ago
        "Obviously the intent was" probably not the same as it obviously was 150 years ago!
        wakawaka28 1y ago
        It's still obvious, but in context. It isn't a recipe or street sign lol...
        crote 1y ago
        The definition of "murder" is "unlawful killing", so you've reduced it to "unlawful killing is against the law" - which is meaningless.
        wakawaka28 1y ago
        That's the wrong way to look at it. The Bible does not refer to other laws as a source of authority. Saying murder is "just" illegal killing is the real meaningless statement. Clearly people in the Bible are allowed to fight and defend themselves. Murder is typically intentional and unnecessary killing of someone else for malicious reasons (or no reason at all). Malicious reasons would typically be spite, greed, or convenience.
    - Retric 1y ago
      The US constitution is still in force after 236 years, and even older laws are still enforced. US courts will sometimes look at precedent from England before the colonies existed. Meanwhile some laws that are months old are ignored by law enforcement because nothing forces them to read it. It’s that effect which is why so many old laws are ignored rather than formally repealed. When nobody is ridding a horse nobody cares how you need to tie one up when visiting a store etc.
      - jkaplowitz 1y ago
        > The US constitution is still in force after 236 years True, but it's been updated a lot more recently than that. The last update was still much longer ago than 10 years, of course. The most recently ratified amendment to the Constitution - the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, ratified 1992 - was, incredibly enough, proposed in 1789 along with the ten we know as the Bill of Rights and another one which was never ratified. And of the twenty-seven amendments ratified so far, the one most recently proposed by Congress, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, was both proposed and ratified in 1971.
        Retric 1y ago
        Are you suggesting that appending the constitution in 1992 with: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. Somehow has an impact on anything else? Because by that standard every change to any law updates all existing laws that were not changed. Or I’m just completely misunderstanding your point here.
        jkaplowitz 1y ago
        My point is that merely referencing the centuries-old original age of a document is misleading when it’s been updated dozens of times ending just a few decades ago. (And many of the updates, including the one in 1971, have been far more impactful than the Twenty-Seventh Amendment which you quoted.) It’s certainly true that the constitution is old and crusty overall and desperately needs an overhaul, but the discussion was about when old laws which haven’t been updated in a while are ignored or enforced. The constitution is indeed one law, not several different laws, and it’s been updated far more recently than its original year of promulgation or ratification. And it’s still mostly enforced (with increasing exceptions but that’s another discussion entirely).
    - lenerdenator 1y ago
      There are plenty of 150-year-old laws that we don't ignore, too.
    - bawolff 1y ago
      > what about a law that hasn't been updated for 150 years? There's plenty of those that we regularly ignore. There might be minor alterations to details, but the core laws are mostly older than that. Murder, theft, etc don't change that much. Even the silly confusing ones have a long life. E.g. "Rule against perpetuities"
      - thaumasiotes 1y ago
        > Even the silly confusing ones have a long life. E.g. "Rule against perpetuities" That wouldn't be my go-to example of a silly law. It's what prevents control of property from remaining permanently with the will of a dead person who managed to own the property outright. It says that, at some point, the will can have no more influence and full ownership vests in someone who's alive.
  - znpy 1y ago
    yup, but no standard is a law. law on its own can mandate the use of a specific standard, but a standard on its own is no law. so much so that often doing non-standard stuff is the most successful route. dumb example: Apple and all of it proprietary, non standard stuff.
  - op00to 1y ago
    You mean like those local laws that say you can’t walk a cow backwards through the main streets? Or laws that say a motor vehicle must be preceded by a lamp carrier.
- crote 1y ago
  > The FHS ultimately belongs to the users collectively, not those maintaining it. I completely agree that regular updates are not a requirement for standards to remain relevant, but it does require the ecosystem to still adhere to them - and the problem is that Linux users are increasingly deviating from the FHS. The FHS does not accurately describe the situation on-the-ground, there are no plans to update the FHS to accurately describe the situation on-the-ground, and there are no plans to update the ecosystem to accurately implement the FHS. Like it or not: the FHS is dead, and nobody seems interested in reviving it.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    Huh, most programs do use it, and if they don't that's a bug?
bigstrat2003 1y ago
I still don't think you adequately explained why that would matter. To reiterate the question OP asked: what updates does it need that it hasn't been getting? It isn't as if one would expect a "put X stuff in y location" document to need maintenance.
- jzb 1y ago
  The FHS 3.0 doesn’t reflect current practices, such as the /usr merge, nor the /sys directory. There’s other ways it’s either no longer followed or missing developments from the last 10 years.

by jzb 1y ago

upofadown 1y ago

The FHS ultimately belongs to the users collectively, not those maintaining it. I am old enough to remember the horror that existed before the influence of the FHS. It exists in the fact that it is to some extent respected, not because there is a file somewhere that says it is the FHS standard. If you want changes, then sure, do the politics required to develop support for those changes. You can't just declare a new standard and then do whatever you want. Developers have this thing where they will think of a standard as a specification. Instead it is a statement of political will. Saying that a standard is "abandoned" due to lack of "maintenance" seems like an example of thinking of a standard as the instantation of a specification; an actual program.

dijit 1y ago
I know it's not the same, but imagine thinking a law is not longer meant to be followed because it hasn't been updated in 10 years.
- Arubis 1y ago
  I agree--given your contraints of law and 10 years. But what about a law that hasn't been updated for 150 years? There's plenty of those that we regularly ignore. What's the timeline for software?
  - dijit 1y ago
    There is no automatic, fixed timeframe after which a law simply stops being followed because it hasn't been updated or looked at; and remember, we're still applying the FHS, it's in active use even if it's not updated. Laws remain in force until they are formally: * Repealed (abolished) by the relevant legislative body (Parliament, Congress, etc.). * Struck down by a court as unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. A 150 year "delete" timer would genuinely undermine the foundation of the legal system. Lawyers, judges, and businesses rely on the continuity of core laws (e.g., contract, property, and tax law). If a 150-year-old property law suddenly lapsed, it could instantly void millions of land titles and commercial contracts...
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - MrJohz 1y ago
      There are other reasons as well. The body responsible for enforcing a particular law can choose not to enforce it, thereby rendering the law useless. Or a law can become obsolete by changes in technology or society - the original law legislates something that just doesn't happen any more, say. Laws can also be written to handle a specific event that only occurs once. Once that event has passed, the law might as well not exist. It doesn't need to be repealed because it just doesn't apply any more. In addition, laws are typically regularly amended to handle new societal developments, to clarify wording, or to fit better with other laws or changes in attitudes. A law that has gone 150 years without being amended at all is probably a law that falls into the categories above and is obsolete. Of course, all this is getting somewhat off-topic, but the point is that laws absolutely can become outdated and unmaintained, either deliberately or by happenstance. And the inverse is also true: most laws that people deal with regularly are kept up-to-date to ensure that they still reflect the needs and wills of the society they're being used in.
    - crote 1y ago
      > Laws remain in force until they are formally: * Struck down by a court as unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. False. They are still in force - they have just become unenforceable. There's a crucial difference, as the US is currently finding out: as long as they are in the books, a Supreme Court decision can instantly render them enforceable again - even against the wishes of the population. The proper thing to do would be to "garbage collect" unenforceable laws, but politicians are (understandably) hesitant to spend political capital on it when it doesn't provide any tangible return.
  - divegeek 1y ago
    Much of the US/UK legal system is based on common-law rules that are several hundred years old. In some cases those old laws have been codified, in some cases not, but either way there's no need to drop them just because they're old. On the contrary, laws that have stood that long without needing to be changed have demonstrated that they are extraordinarily good ideas.
    - avianlyric 1y ago
      I’m not sure point to the UK is a good example. There are plenty of weird and obscure laws that simply aren’t enforced or followed anymore. Everything from laws about handling salmon suspiciously, through to various right around who can drive sheep across Tower Bridge. Those laws survive not because anyone considers them a good idea, but simply because the issues caused by ignoring them are substantially smaller than the effort involved in removing them. We also have a bunch of laws that are still followed, but only in the most technical sense. Every “Parliament route” train schedule falls into that category. Train services that must be provided at least once a day, sometimes only once a week, which nobody actually uses, and in some cases only travel to stations with no practical public entrances. Those laws don’t survive because anyone things they’re a good idea, it’s just easier to run the train, than it is to get parliament time to abolish the law.
  - ikiris 1y ago
    How often does "thou shall not kill" need an update?
    - knowitnone3 1y ago
      Not even in defense of your own life, family, others? You have a lot of people on HN that celebrate killing of then innocent.
      - wakawaka28 1y ago
        Obviously the intent was "Thou shall not murder anyone"... Interpreting it otherwise doesn't make sense, and is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.
        immibis 1y ago
        "Obviously the intent was" probably not the same as it obviously was 150 years ago!
        wakawaka28 1y ago
        It's still obvious, but in context. It isn't a recipe or street sign lol...
        crote 1y ago
        The definition of "murder" is "unlawful killing", so you've reduced it to "unlawful killing is against the law" - which is meaningless.
        wakawaka28 1y ago
        That's the wrong way to look at it. The Bible does not refer to other laws as a source of authority. Saying murder is "just" illegal killing is the real meaningless statement. Clearly people in the Bible are allowed to fight and defend themselves. Murder is typically intentional and unnecessary killing of someone else for malicious reasons (or no reason at all). Malicious reasons would typically be spite, greed, or convenience.
  - Retric 1y ago
    The US constitution is still in force after 236 years, and even older laws are still enforced. US courts will sometimes look at precedent from England before the colonies existed. Meanwhile some laws that are months old are ignored by law enforcement because nothing forces them to read it. It’s that effect which is why so many old laws are ignored rather than formally repealed. When nobody is ridding a horse nobody cares how you need to tie one up when visiting a store etc.
    - jkaplowitz 1y ago
      > The US constitution is still in force after 236 years True, but it's been updated a lot more recently than that. The last update was still much longer ago than 10 years, of course. The most recently ratified amendment to the Constitution - the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, ratified 1992 - was, incredibly enough, proposed in 1789 along with the ten we know as the Bill of Rights and another one which was never ratified. And of the twenty-seven amendments ratified so far, the one most recently proposed by Congress, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, was both proposed and ratified in 1971.
      - Retric 1y ago
        Are you suggesting that appending the constitution in 1992 with: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. Somehow has an impact on anything else? Because by that standard every change to any law updates all existing laws that were not changed. Or I’m just completely misunderstanding your point here.
        jkaplowitz 1y ago
        My point is that merely referencing the centuries-old original age of a document is misleading when it’s been updated dozens of times ending just a few decades ago. (And many of the updates, including the one in 1971, have been far more impactful than the Twenty-Seventh Amendment which you quoted.) It’s certainly true that the constitution is old and crusty overall and desperately needs an overhaul, but the discussion was about when old laws which haven’t been updated in a while are ignored or enforced. The constitution is indeed one law, not several different laws, and it’s been updated far more recently than its original year of promulgation or ratification. And it’s still mostly enforced (with increasing exceptions but that’s another discussion entirely).
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    There are plenty of 150-year-old laws that we don't ignore, too.
  - bawolff 1y ago
    > what about a law that hasn't been updated for 150 years? There's plenty of those that we regularly ignore. There might be minor alterations to details, but the core laws are mostly older than that. Murder, theft, etc don't change that much. Even the silly confusing ones have a long life. E.g. "Rule against perpetuities"
    - thaumasiotes 1y ago
      > Even the silly confusing ones have a long life. E.g. "Rule against perpetuities" That wouldn't be my go-to example of a silly law. It's what prevents control of property from remaining permanently with the will of a dead person who managed to own the property outright. It says that, at some point, the will can have no more influence and full ownership vests in someone who's alive.
- znpy 1y ago
  yup, but no standard is a law. law on its own can mandate the use of a specific standard, but a standard on its own is no law. so much so that often doing non-standard stuff is the most successful route. dumb example: Apple and all of it proprietary, non standard stuff.
- op00to 1y ago
  You mean like those local laws that say you can’t walk a cow backwards through the main streets? Or laws that say a motor vehicle must be preceded by a lamp carrier.
crote 1y ago
> The FHS ultimately belongs to the users collectively, not those maintaining it. I completely agree that regular updates are not a requirement for standards to remain relevant, but it does require the ecosystem to still adhere to them - and the problem is that Linux users are increasingly deviating from the FHS. The FHS does not accurately describe the situation on-the-ground, there are no plans to update the FHS to accurately describe the situation on-the-ground, and there are no plans to update the ecosystem to accurately implement the FHS. Like it or not: the FHS is dead, and nobody seems interested in reviving it.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  Huh, most programs do use it, and if they don't that's a bug?

bigstrat2003 1y ago

I still don't think you adequately explained why that would matter. To reiterate the question OP asked: what updates does it need that it hasn't been getting? It isn't as if one would expect a "put X stuff in y location" document to need maintenance.

jzb 1y ago
The FHS 3.0 doesn’t reflect current practices, such as the /usr merge, nor the /sys directory. There’s other ways it’s either no longer followed or missing developments from the last 10 years.