Re: Structure in $HOME

[Claes Holmerson <claes it-slav net>]

On 12 Jan 2003, Seth Nickell wrote:

> > I might want to back up all of my preferences, for backup reasons,
> > without backing up the whole galeon cache. For this reason, it would be
> > easier to have a single preferences directory to back up, with
> > application-specific data in separate directories after that.
>
> Then the galeon cache probably shouldn't be a part of this structure. As
> I said, some sorts of data should probably still remain in hidden
> folders. The data should be "anything that makes the application work
> like it does on this system". That includes more than just
> "preferences", per se, but also things like the mail filters I've
> defined, the extra clipart I installed, or my web browser history. Its
> tricky to draw a precise line, so common sense should prevail.

Agreed. However, I think things like cache etc should have their own
directory structure as well, since it makes sense to gather them for other
reasons. If diskspace is running out (unlikely), if you want to delete
your history etc, it is good to know that this directory is what you want
to delete.

> I claim this is neither reasonable given historical patterns, nor
> desirable. Hiding the "inner workings" of the computer behind a thin
> boundary has almost always led to problems. Windows is a clear testament
> to this, particularly in contrast to the Macintosh.

Storing things in a structured way below a dot-directory is not really
equvialent to what windows does I think. But I get your point.

> Ideally, every file on the system would be intelligible to normal human
> users based on its name and location. *nix is waaaaaaay off here,
> probably further than any other system, but at the very least we could
> reclaim the home folder for people again.

I agree with this too. What I disagree with is that it is easier for to
people to find their bookmarks in mozilla/bookmarks, rather than
bookmarks/mozilla.

Claes