How does this differ from containers?
Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks
161–170 of 250 posts
Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why that kind of software uses a .programX directory, where everything like that can be put in. Look at ~/.wine for example... config files, whole C drive, everything in one simple folder. Want to upgrade to an alpha version to test something, but don't want to break anything that's now working? Just backup that one single folder. Restore or migrate configuration to another computer? One single folder. Remove…
> Look at ~/.wine for example... config files, whole C drive, everything in one simple folder Except it isn't really. Just a few days ago I tried to purge Wine from my system. Uninstalled through pacman, cleaned up orphaned dependencies. Killed the ./wine folder and various other leftovers too, because depite your claim, there they were, though I didn't commit to memory exactly where and what. Removed some autostart…
This is probably because Wine created a .desktop file in the directory for registering default applications. I don't remember what the directory path is but your package manager is responsible for it, not Wine. They can't put it in .wine because it's a standardised location.
Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly can't imagine not using vim. It fits like a glove. Sometimes I find myself typing ;wq to try and send messages.
Another man with the wisdom of ages, irrespective of the date of your birth. Your choice of text editor reveals that you must also be quite good looking.
Exactly, except for a minor typo. :s/vim/nvim.
Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks
#164I hate when applications ignore the XDG spec, but you know what I hate more? the XDG spec! I don't want all my pictures to go in Pictures, all my documents in Documents, etc. I want everything from each project to go in the directory for that project. I don't need it to read my mind, but when I save a document to a new directory and then I want to save a spreadsheet too... I want that new directory to be a top-line c…
What are you talking about? When people say the "XDG spec", they are usually referring to the XDG Base Directory Specification, but there are other specifications from XDG - are you talking about a different one?
Because the XDG Base Directory Specification does not dictate about how files should be saved - whether in Pictures/, Documents/, or anything else...
Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> some have hardcoded those paths in other scripts My sympathy is lacking, as is my respect for those running projects that hardcode paths. Stop hardcoding paths and the world will be a better place.
eg. ~./bashrc has existed there for 30+ years, changing stuff just because someone doesn't like seeing a file in a folder is imho stupid.
I'd say bashrc and profile and friends are one of the few examples in which using hardcoded paths is OK. Same with SSH, GPG, and PAM.
But when people are talking about compliance, and hardcoding very few people are talking about those applications - there are hundreds of other applications do the wrong thing, and some scripts hardcode things as a result.
Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
The really fun part is when you have a program that has ~/.programX, but also ~/.programXy, ~/.programX_cache, ~/.programxrc, ~/.programx_init, ~/.programx/a_whole_directory, ~/.otherthing, ~/.maybe_a_database_for_good_measure.sqlite, ~/.and_the_kitchen_sink_too. And that's not even getting into questions like "can I nuke ~/.programX_db to clear the program's cache without losing my configurations?". I agree that the…
That's why that kind of software uses a .programX directory, where everything like that can be put in. Look at ~/.wine for example... config files, whole C drive, everything in one simple folder. Want to upgrade to an alpha version to test something, but don't want to break anything that's now working? Just backup that one single folder. Restore or migrate configuration to another computer? One single folder. Remove…
> Just backup that one single folder.
Backups are the main reason why I want programs to follow the XDG Base Directory Specification. I don't want my backups to includes gigabytes of files that should be in ~/.cache, which is a directory I never back up. The shell script that I wrote to back up my PC includes dozens of rsync exclusions for files in ~/.mozilla, etc. that should be in ~/.cache.
Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks
#167Hah I was literally just complaining about applications not following the XDG directory spec today. there's a non-exhaustive list of applications on the archwiki [0] that put their config/data in dotfiles in the home directory. surprisingly, there's also lots of pushback from maintainers of projects who don't want to change this, for whatever excuse they can produce. a Reddit thread has some list of issues where the…
The dotfiles and dotfolders directly in the home folder is "the way it was always done", and now some "new kids" came and want changes done to software which has existed before they were even born. People have muscle memory for those folders, some have hardcoded those paths in other scripts, others just don't care, and things stay as they always were. On one hand, it's great to have all the stuff in the same place, o…
> now some "new kids" came and want changes
I realize that you wrote "new kids" in quotes, but these "new kids" might have grandchildren at this point given that the initial draft of the XDG Base Directory Specification was published in 2002.
Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks
#168This is neat!
What's so bad about symlinks though?
Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
The XDG base directory specification[0] was initially introduced in 2003; 20 years ago now. Yes there's plenty of software that existed before 2003 which didn't respect XDG, but most all of the Linux software dumping dotfiles in my homedir where written not just after 2003, but many years after 2003. For example, the following pieces of software all have dumped garbage in my homedir, and all are much less than 20 yea…
> There's no excuses for these programs not respecting standards that are 1. Well established by the time the software was written and 2. short This isn't a standard, it's a convention at best. A freedesktop.org specification. Basically a scheme Red Hat people thought up and implemented widely in the open source software projects they control. It may be a useful abstraction but there's absolutely no obligation to con…
This is the world of Unix, there's very little obligation to do anything other than convention. That's technically true, just like you can write your software to ignore all signals, or write your software such that it assumes it's always run as root for your convenience. That may be more convenient for you the developer, it's true.
But those are all generally poor ways to write software, and a great way to get your users to complain. So it is with ignoring XDG.
Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks
#170Can you use boxxy on itself if you dont want the config file at ~/.config/boxxy/boxxy.yaml ?