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

Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 250 posts

Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks

#151

Post by fomine3 »

fsckboy wrote: post #139

I 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…

Also I hate localized XDG directories. Windows and macOS don't localize real directory name but only Linux does. I run LANG=C xdg-user-dirs-update after I install Linux with my lang

Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks

#152

Post by fsckboy »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #137
adhoc_slime wrote: post #6

Hah 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…

> surprisingly, there's also lots of pushback from maintainers of projects who don't want to change this, for whatever excuse they can produce. There doesn't need to be an "excuse" though. "I don't like it" or "I don't want to do it" is more than enough. They're the ones maintaining the damn things, the least we can do is respect them. They don't really need to justify anything, acting as if they had to is how you ge…

> They're the ones maintaining the damn things, the least we can do is respect them.

we don't respect maintainers who leave in buffer overruns or x-site scripting, why should we respect maintainers who don't respect users? yes, they're writing and maintaining, but undoubtedly also using tons of respectful opensource that other maintainers take care of.

it's like driving a car ("everybody faster than me is a maniac, everybody slower than me is a moron") and cursing cyclists, then jumping on your bike and running red lights, stop signs, crosswalks, sidewalks, you name it. To have a civilized society we all have to go out of our way a little bit for other people, throw away some trash that's not yours.

like forum/reddit moderator phenomenon, there is something about the power (and most definitely the nagging they get from impolite users) that makes the developers act like douches when they probably aren't the rest of the time.

but that's not an excuse for crapping all over my dotfiles and home directory tree.

Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks

#153

Post by ikiris »

dopidopHN wrote: post #131
brigandish wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short, memorable passwords like one's birthday or favourite pet's name are "just fine for the vast majority of users". It's a meaningless metric of quality - or more to the point - it isn't a metric of quality.

Weak passwords have securities downside. I struggle to see what the issue is with ~/.programName ?

Your lack of imagination is not a compelling argument.

Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks

#154

Post by 149765 »

acdw wrote: post #85
notamy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL! I guess I'll find a better example.

I humbly submit either bash, sh, or zsh --- they all put dotfiles in $HOME that you can't move (zsh technically /can/, but they're still dotfiles and you have to set them in ~/.zshenv). Very annoying IMO. Course, might not work so well with the way boxxy is run ... unless you chsh to boxxy bash or something.

It's possible to set $ZDOTDIR in /etc/zsh/zshenv, I used to do it before switching to fish.

Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks

#155

Post by vinnydiehl »

renewiltord wrote: post #138
matheusmoreira wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the problem. There's no reason to choose one or the other when we can have both. Many programs try several options. Git for example tries ~/.gitconfig and ~/.config/git/config. Do people seriously resist such non-destructive improvements just because they think it's offensive when younger programmers have opinions on legacy software?

Personally I see a lot of young people use emacs and BSD licences, but because I'm an older engineer and have the wisdom and experience of time, I use vim and GPL.

I honestly can't imagine not using vim. It fits like a glove. Sometimes I find myself typing ;wq to try and send messages.

Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks

#156

Post by renewiltord »

vinnydiehl wrote: post #155
renewiltord wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I see a lot of young people use emacs and BSD licences, but because I'm an older engineer and have the wisdom and experience of time, I use vim and GPL.

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.

Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks

#158

Post by interfixus »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #98
saulrh wrote: post #94

Earlier 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…

> 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 shortcuts, cleared a few icons from desktop, and manually edited the Plasma menu to remove some stubborn links.

And yet ... I still get suggestions to open my jpg's and png's with something called Wine Internet Explorer. Which i don't really believe is distro specific, since I've seen the same thing happen in both Debian and RedHat derivatives.

Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks

#159

Post by brigandish »

dopidopHN wrote: post #131
brigandish wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short, memorable passwords like one's birthday or favourite pet's name are "just fine for the vast majority of users". It's a meaningless metric of quality - or more to the point - it isn't a metric of quality.

Weak passwords have securities downside. I struggle to see what the issue is with ~/.programName ?

First and foremost, that I don't get to decide where things go on my own machine, and that if I do regardless, because developers didn't follow a simple standard and instead decided to hardcode things that shouldn't be hardcoded - which is just about the first thing every dev is taught not to do - things will break.

You may not find it important but is it an issue or not?

Re: Show HN: boxxy – Control where Linux programs put files, without symlinks

#160

Post by brigandish »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #129
brigandish wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a defence of hardcoded paths might go, I could've done better myself. What else from your OS 30 years ago might you keep just because it's 30+ years old?

I keep it because it's worked for 30 years without issues and it's still working. Must you always replace something, just because a newer thing is "out there"? On the other hand, this is hackernews, and rewriting everything, from a text editor to a file browser, into a (ruby, go, rust,...) is a thing.

Try moving all of those directories and files somewhere else that you would prefer and then see which programs break, which apps and libraries won't install, and then wonder why hardcoding is something the devs for these projects cling to.
Post reply on HN