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

Rob Pike: the origin of dotfiles

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 156 posts

Re: Rob Pike: the origin of dotfiles

#31

Post by angusgr »

joe_the_user wrote: post #29
keyist wrote: post #2

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 notice the $XDG_DATA_HOME environment variable isn't set in my Intrepid install. Maybe its set in later Ubuntu version. But the value not being set for me means implies to me that it not being set is pretty common. Thus it seems like supporting this standard is going to involve supporting a fall-back of whatever you would do otherwise. So I don't see "easy" at all but rather extra BS. Sorry.

From the spec: If $XDG_DATA_HOME is either not set or empty, a default equal to $HOME/.local/share should be used. Similarly there's a default (.config/) defined for XDG_CONFIG_HOME. So the fallback is well-defined rather than "whatever you would do otherwise".

Also, for my 2c, you should consider updating your Intrepid install if you at all can. It hasn't been supported for over two years, so it hasn't seen any security updates in that time. The Ubuntu do-release-upgrade system is pretty easy and reliable.

Re: Rob Pike: the origin of dotfiles

#32

Post by ricardobeat »

angusgr wrote: post #31
joe_the_user wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice the $XDG_DATA_HOME environment variable isn't set in my Intrepid install. Maybe its set in later Ubuntu version. But the value not being set for me means implies to me that it not being set is pretty common. Thus it seems like supporting this standard is going to involve supporting a fall-back of whatever you would do otherwise. So I don't see "easy" at all but rather extra BS. Sorry.

From the spec: If $XDG_DATA_HOME is either not set or empty, a default equal to $HOME/.local/share should be used. Similarly there's a default (.config/) defined for XDG_CONFIG_HOME. So the fallback is well-defined rather than "whatever you would do otherwise". Also, for my 2c, you should consider updating your Intrepid install if you at all can. It hasn't been supported for over two years, so it hasn't seen any secu…

$HOME/.local/share doesn't exist on OSX either.

Re: Rob Pike: the origin of dotfiles

#33

Post by UK-AL »

emperorcezar wrote: post #30

If someone thinks hidden files are a misstep, then I don't want them designing a OS. Grandma really doesn't care about some conf file, or anything like that. She cares about the pictures of her grandkids. The opinion that there shouldn't be hidden files comes from a perspective of someone who is a "power user" and who can't step back and see that most users really don't care for some .config file. To them it's clutte…

Did you read his post? He said exactly that. Put them in a config directory of some sort.

Re: Rob Pike: the origin of dotfiles

#34

Post by GauntletWizard »

seanalltogether wrote: post #21
frossie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are a natural segregator of novice and advanced users. If you have a limited level of interaction with the unix shell (remember than in the old days everyone in a science academic department used a Unix machine, even the dusty professors you kept in the back of the supplies cabinet), setting up their account and then making sure that they couldnt get into any trouble because they didn't know about 'ls -a' was ve…

I wonder if that is a good solution for separating novices and pros though? For me, hidden files and folders only help to reinforce the confusion people have about computers. It's one thing to provide a folder to a user with a lock or shield on it, it's another to completely hide it from them.

Negative. A lock or shield will convince a user that they're not to touch it, ever... Unless they are too dumb to understand the connotations, in which case they'll simply break it anyway. Hidden files are a good way to go - Out of sight, out of mind for most people, but not impossible to show them when they do need to touch.

Re: Rob Pike: the origin of dotfiles

#35

Post by emperorcezar »

UK-AL wrote: post #33
emperorcezar wrote: post #30

If someone thinks hidden files are a misstep, then I don't want them designing a OS. Grandma really doesn't care about some conf file, or anything like that. She cares about the pictures of her grandkids. The opinion that there shouldn't be hidden files comes from a perspective of someone who is a "power user" and who can't step back and see that most users really don't care for some .config file. To them it's clutte…

Did you read his post? He said exactly that. Put them in a config directory of some sort.

Yes. I'm not talking about his post. I'm talking about a few other comments here and on G+.

Re: Rob Pike: the origin of dotfiles

#36

Post by Xcelerate »

bdunbar wrote: post #20
seanalltogether wrote: post #6

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.

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.

*knowledgable enough

Re: Rob Pike: the origin of dotfiles

#38

Post by rehack »

I think the case of hidden dot files is a good example of 'convention over configuration'[1].

Point is accepted, that it came into being due to a lazy programmer. But surely early people might have just liked the unintended consequence of some files (dot files) being hidden. Just like most of us, whenever we learnt unix thought that it is by design.

If early users, had found the consequence a handicap, it would have been fixed long back.

Its similar to the use of hash-tags on twitter or the @for addressing which got adopted by users first and so became features (although the paths to them being considered features are different).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_configuration

Edit: Grammar

Re: Rob Pike: the origin of dotfiles

#39

Post by agumonkey »

malkia wrote: post #4
tyrmored wrote: post #3

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" :)

my de-obfuscation attempt:

etc > e.t.c > edit to configure.

the .rc suffix has a nice history btw

Re: Rob Pike: the origin of dotfiles

#40

Post by SCdF »

emperorcezar wrote: post #30

If someone thinks hidden files are a misstep, then I don't want them designing a OS. Grandma really doesn't care about some conf file, or anything like that. She cares about the pictures of her grandkids. The opinion that there shouldn't be hidden files comes from a perspective of someone who is a "power user" and who can't step back and see that most users really don't care for some .config file. To them it's clutte…

Sounds like you agree with him, as he advocates a 'conf' directory at the end of his post.
Post reply on HN