[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNUstep directory layout

From: Dennis Leeuw
Subject: Re: GNUstep directory layout
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 11:10:29 +0200


Hi Tim and others,

>  > I think the NeXT idea was to sort things in a fashion that it was
> clear what was
>  > coming from where.
>  > /System -> NeXT
>  > /Local -> Sysadmin
>  > /Local/Users/<user> -> The user
>  > /Network -> another host on the network
> Following that logic, that means the users are the domain of the system
> administrator, as opposed to that of each individual user.  It's like
> IRIX's /usr/people, which always annoyed me. :)  NEXTSTEP actually had
> /Users, and Mac OS X has /Users.  Normally, the users are kept out of
> any directory like /usr because /usr is, in many environments, mounted
> read-only.  If /Local acts like /usr, then it's possible that it could
> be mounted read-only.  Now, I know it's most likely impossible to mount
> a GNUstep /Local partition as read-only (I haven't looked too closely
> into it), but the argument could be made thus:  if directories within a
> GNUstep domain were to inherit the rights and permissions of the parent
> directory in which it is housed, then the permissions and rights of
> /Local could negatively affect the users.  This could potentially make
> /Local/Users read-only.  I still believe that /Users is the best place
> for them to reside.  That way, the permissions only of the parent /Users
> directory affect the structures below.

I had a good night sleep on this one, and I think I agree. I think we could
even be closer to the /Network problem as we think:
/System -> resources supplied by the distribution
/Local    -> resources supplied by the sysadmin
/User     -> resources supplied by the users

> I might not be explaining this terribly well, as it's almost 4am, and
> I've been having terrible insomnia over the past month. :/  I'll reread
> it when I get some sleep, and see if I can make it more clear. :)

I think it was clear and I do agree ;)

>  > And THAT is why I want it to be clean. As long as there is no good
> solution, don't
>  > provide a semi-solution, which will eventually clash with the
> solution you find.
> But, clearing out /Network is a semi-solution.  It doesn't address the
> problems of where the GNUstep environment looks for applications.  If
> the admin decides to use /Network/I_Rule/This_Network/Apps/BillyBob.app,
> then how is GNUstep supposed to know to search there?  If we have a
> standard way of mounting, then it can be designed to look in standard
> places.

True, but searching a /Network with e.g. 10 mounts makes the overall system
very slow.

>  > hmm, what about a database server. You use it to gain access to data...
>  > Maybe it is a bit too easy but you get the picture.... (I hope)
> I understand your point, but I'm just saying that I see a distinct
> difference between most tools and servers.  I'll leave it at that. :)

Good, I will too ;)

>   > I think we should only "steal" what helps us, not what brings us
> further away... :)
> Well, keep in mind that GNUstep was started to create a free
> implementation of OpenStep.  OpenStep now lives on with Apple.  What
> Apple does with OS X is a continuation of what OpenStep was.  I think
> Mac OS X is an excellent place to look for concepts on how GNUstep
> should be designed.  After all, Cocoa is the older brother of GNUstep.
> Maybe we should be looking at how they deal with /Network and where
> users are held.  Some of what they do, I agree with.  Some, I do not
> (time to be rid of /private, I think :)).
> --
> Tim Harrison
> address@hidden
> http://www.linuxstep.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]