Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dotfile madness (2019)

0x46.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–185 of 185 posts

Re: Dotfile madness (2019)

#181

Post by psd1 »

codedokode wrote: post #80
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #33

What I personally find more egregious are dotfiles and dot-dirs on Windows , created by half-baked ports of Unix-first software (such as `ssh`). Windows has `%APPDATA%` and `%LOCALAPPDATA%` that are accessible with `ShGetKnownFolderPath`[0], using the appropriate `KNOWNFOLDERID`[1]; all programs should put their configuration and cache data in these paths. Windows also doesn't know what the dot at the beginning of a…

I think "hidden" files are a bad idea. What's the point of hiding some of the files in a directory from user? It only makes things more confusing. For example the folder might look empty but in fact it could contain thousands of hidden files. You want to delete it as it is empty but accidentally delete important system files. Even worse, imagine if all files on an USB drive are marked as hidden. You see that the driv…

Re accidental deletion, ntfs also has a "system" flag. Windows prompts if you delete one of those.

Re: Dotfile madness (2019)

#182

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

jstanley wrote: post #147
annowiki wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I run ls I don't want to see all the configuration files. Just my files. I think that's the point of hidden files. > One more example. Imagine if you have a project and want to edit an .env file. But as dotfiles are hidden in Linux you don't see this file and cannot open it. How likely is it that someone is going to want to edit a .env file and not know how to view hidden files?

> When I run ls I don't want to see all the configuration files. Just my files. Well then configuration files can simply not be in the same directory as your files. Easy fix.

Your user doesn't have permissions to write to any directory that isn't yours. It doesn't mean configs have to be in your "documents" directory, but they do have to be in with your files!

Re: Dotfile madness (2019)

#183

Post by jstanley »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #182
jstanley wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I run ls I don't want to see all the configuration files. Just my files. Well then configuration files can simply not be in the same directory as your files. Easy fix.

Your user doesn't have permissions to write to any directory that isn't yours. It doesn't mean configs have to be in your "documents" directory, but they do have to be in with your files!

The comment I was responding to was talking about the utility of files being hidden.

But they don't need to be hidden by being special, they can just be "hidden" by living in a subdirectory that you don't look inside.

Re: Dotfile madness (2019)

#184

Post by kragen »

hyperupcall wrote: post #178
kragen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My home directory has dotfiles for aspell, bash, bzr, cargo, Clojure, CPAN, CVS, Darcs, D-BUS, Dillo, DOSBox, DOSEmu, Emacs, Eclipse, Emacs, ESD, FLTK, fontconfig, FontForge, GForth, GHC, the GIMP, Git, GnuPG, Gnuplot, Guix, IceWM, Idle, Java, John the Ripper, Jython, Links2, MilkyTracker, Mozilla (Firefox), MPlayer, Nethack, Octave, Racket, R, Skeinforge, Slic3r, SSH, SQLite, Subversion, Units, Vim, W3M, WINE, X-Win…

Yeah I sympathize with you - my goal is for the Linux community to use a system - that is, a well-defined one, not one born arbitrarily out of the (`if (name[0] == ".") file_hidden = true;` code that has since metastasized into an ungodly manifestation of chaos itself. And that good system is the XDG Base Directory Specification. I'm sure as you know, Unix systems in general have a bad history of ad-hoc protocols and…

I do not share your fear of chaos or your faith in rational planning over ad-hoc protocols and conventions. I would prefer that you not attempt to rationalize the operating system I live in. Have you considered that the system you are looking for is perhaps not any kind of Unix, but maybe something like Plan 9, Macintosh System 7, PalmOS, or Oberon?

Instead of lamenting that Unix isn't more like Oberon, and trying to make it more like Oberon, consider that possibly the secret of Unix's success is that its ad-hoc protocols and conventions embody ideas that work very well, so instead of replacing them with untested rational planning, you should try to learn from them. Embrace the chaos.

Re: Dotfile madness (2019)

#185

Post by dang »

smeagull wrote: post #28
bee_rider wrote: post #3

Eh, I dunno. XDG is just some group or whatever, dropping config files in .programname is the de-facto community standard. If people want to follow XDG that's fine, but I can't blame anybody who wants to ignore all that noise.

> dropping config files in .programname is the de-facto community standard. Fuck you so much.

Posting like this will get you banned on HN. No more of this, please, regardless of how strongly you feel about config files.

Also, would you please stop posting unsubstantive/flamebait comments more generally? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN