11–20 of 156 posts
This is a problem that libetc is supposed to help solve: http://ordiluc.net/fs/libetc/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also begs the question, why it was named "etc" :)
I'm guessing it's because /etc contains configuration files and dot-files are just configuration files. Or do you mean, why was /etc named etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also begs the question, why it was named "etc" :)
I'm guessing it's because /etc contains configuration files and dot-files are just configuration files. Or do you mean, why was /etc named etc?
"There has been controversy over the meaning of the name itself. In early versions of the UNIX Implementation Document from Bell labs, /etc is referred to as the etcetera directory as this directory historically held everything that did not belong elsewhere (however, the FHS restricts /etc to static configuration files and may not contain binaries)."
That's really interesting. I always assumed hiding dotfiles was a deliberate convention, but to semi-quote one of the commenters, Rob's got a point. Or two.
Little did I know.
Instead of putting a dotfile or dotdir in the user's home directory, do follow the XDG Base Directory specification: http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-l... . It's easy to understand and requires only a marginal increase in effort/code.
It's not at all easy to understand, nor easy to implement, nor does it have any tangible advantages.
It's one of these superfluous pseudo-standards that do nothing but add needless clutter. But gladly nobody seems to be using it anyway, I see only one directory in my ~/.local: vlc.
This is a problem that libetc is supposed to help solve: http://ordiluc.net/fs/libetc/
It also begs the question, why it was named "etc" :)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard
Instead of putting a dotfile or dotdir in the user's home directory, do follow the XDG Base Directory specification: http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-l... . It's easy to understand and requires only a marginal increase in effort/code.
I see no benefit. It's not at all easy to understand, nor easy to implement, nor does it have any tangible advantages. It's one of these superfluous pseudo-standards that do nothing but add needless clutter. But gladly nobody seems to be using it anyway, I see only one directory in my ~/.local: vlc.
For those who object that dot files serve a purpose, I don't dispute that but counter that it's the files that serve the purpose, not the convention for their names. I would like to hear a good argument for why hidden files and folders are a good thing.
Moreover I personally much prefer them to global configuration directories because they are always local to the thing being configured and you can always override a global configuration by using them.
In fact I think they are a very elegant way to handle "hidden options" - stuff you want to expose to the power users but not bother newbies with.
tl;dr: I am not convinced they are a misfeature.
For those who object that dot files serve a purpose, I don't dispute that but counter that it's the files that serve the purpose, not the convention for their names. I would like to hear a good argument for why hidden files and folders are a good thing.
They keep users from monkeying with stuff until they are smart enough to find the hidden files.