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

Use the XDG Base Directory Specification

xdgbasedirectoryspecification.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 214 posts

Re: Use the XDG Base Directory Specification

#181

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

nubinetwork wrote: post #166
account42 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the heck are you talking about? The XDG basedir spec is three variables. The user dir spec is more but those are not environement variables.

https://pastebin.com/raw/iUrtcySi You're welcome.

So that's not any fault of XDG, that's you forcing applications to use it when they apparently don't support it natively. That's either 15 or 19 lines of application bugs.

Re: Use the XDG Base Directory Specification

#182

Post by hanche »

tough wrote: post #118
pasc1878 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a better default than a hidden directory. It is obvious and so you can set GOPATH Also works better on Windows where .path is not hidden Also it seems Rob Pike one of the creators of Go and involved with early UNIX thinks that . making hidden files was a mistake. Quote via XahLee http://xahlee.info/UnixResource_dir/writ/unix_origin_of_dot_... - original was Google+ so not existing now.

I hate it when I forget to show hidden files on mac. They had a kb shortcut for it

They still do: Shift-Command-period toggles hidden files visibility.

Re: Use the XDG Base Directory Specification

#183

Post by kkfx »

A small note I do not have seen so far in comments here: the article told about "easier backup", actually I strongly disagree. I do keep some configs I've write myself/edited myself. Most of the rest are automatically made stuff useless to be backed up and sometimes also inopportune to restore since a version to another some (cr)applications do badly digest their own automatic config.

Re: Use the XDG Base Directory Specification

#184

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

eviks wrote: post #37
fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #3

I strongly disagree: the dot files cause very little inconvenience because they’re typically hidden and they’re easier to type and list than the XDG spec stuff

The hidden part is another usability mistake, but the main benefit of XDG is respecting user's choice who can set an env var to avoid the mess, hope you wouldn't disagree with an option the improves someone's life without affecting yours in any way?

The convention of hiding files starting with a dot is not a usability mistake. It’s a usability improvement.

Re: Use the XDG Base Directory Specification

#185

Post by transfire »

I have been a staunch supporter of XDG basedir standard for many years. Unfortunately it has become clear to me that it is simply not enough. So instead I have started to abandon home as the place to store my files. I use a subdirectory in home instead, the name of which is purposefully non-specific.

Re: Use the XDG Base Directory Specification

#186

Post by nubinetwork »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #181
nubinetwork wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://pastebin.com/raw/iUrtcySi You're welcome.

So that's not any fault of XDG, that's you forcing applications to use it when they apparently don't support it natively. That's either 15 or 19 lines of application bugs.

Reread what I said, "apps should just use xdg out of the box"

Re: Use the XDG Base Directory Specification

#187

Post by subsection1h »

upofadown wrote: post #106

Yeah, we have a straightforward and widely established standard. Just put the related files in .programname . Now let's bikeshed and scatter them randomly across several places. To make it more fun let's make those locations programmable with environment variables so you won't even know where to start looking for a particular related file. Add lots of categories to create ambiguity. Make some of the default locations…

> Now let's bikeshed and scatter them randomly across several places

"Now"? The initial draft of the XDG Base Directory Specification was published in 2002.

I don't my backups to include gigabytes of worthless cache files. I want them isolated somewhere, anywhere, so they can be easily excluded in my backup scripts.

Re: Use the XDG Base Directory Specification

#188

Post by eviks »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #184
eviks wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hidden part is another usability mistake, but the main benefit of XDG is respecting user's choice who can set an env var to avoid the mess, hope you wouldn't disagree with an option the improves someone's life without affecting yours in any way?

The convention of hiding files starting with a dot is not a usability mistake. It’s a usability improvement.

Why would you hide the files a user is explicitly expected to tweak to configure an app's behavior and call it an improvement??? It degrades the config experience, what part of "usability" is improved?

Also, fun historical fact: it was a bug when it was implemented https://linux-audit.com/linux-history-how-dot-files-became-h...

Post reply on HN