undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAvamander5y ago0 comments

> You can patch it all.

As I said, impractical, not a solution.

> If world does not match your view it may be you who is outlier.

Looking at the amount of software that does follow the base directory specification, actually you're the outlier insisting on obsolete conventions.

You and a bunch of other developers insist on those things, in reality that is the actually harmful behaviour for open-source.

Interestingly but yet non-surprisingly, that insistence very often goes in hand with the stubborness to stay on obsolete mailing lists, ugly user interfaces, insecurity by-default, git-email, buggy issue trackers, 80-column commit messages, obsolete security standards and practices and so much more.

> I quite like current convention - hidden files in $HOME belong to applications.

The future is now, home folders aren't to be filled with trash. Move on or stay behind, seriously.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

sergeykish5y ago· 2 in thread

Lets check. I tolerate both versions, use workarounds in my .bash_profile and share them, actually tried to patch and have written article [0].

You shame software, half of it has workaround, see patching as impractical.

XDG Base Directory Specification [1] is not about your home folder. It is about default storage, separation of cache, user data and config, a way to provide another config, so one can:

* remove entire config when stuck with a problem

* remove cache, think /var/cache

* `ssh -F foo` would be `XDG_CONFIG_HOME=foo ssh`

Everyone has a pain point, everyone has a workflow, there is no One True Way. Please stop shaming authors, they quit, sometimes post it here about mob. Patching folder structure is the simplest thing. If you can't do that who is going to fix actual bugs?

[0] http://sergeykish.com/openssh-config-in-xdg-directory

[1] https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-...

AvamanderOP5y ago

> Please stop shaming authors, they quit, sometimes post it here about mob.

If one feels that talking about a bug in their software is "shaming" them, then maybe they should quit or alternatively, just quit pretending they want feedback or to write FOSS. Same applies to teams writing software.

Not to mention how harmful it is to think that everyone who picks up FOSS is actually good at it. Thinking people as infallible is actively harmful for the end users.

> Patching folder structure is the simplest thing. If you can't do that who is going to fix actual bugs?

Incorrect folder structure is an actual bug. It might be simple to patch for the end user, but you're ignoring the maintenance burden, annoyance and cumbersomeness.

> Everyone has a pain point, everyone has a workflow, there is no One True Way.

There are paths more correct than others, some workflows are obsolete and stupid, and should't be catered to. It's wilful ignorance to ignore that.

https://xkcd.com/1172/

> half of it has workaround

Bwahahaha, you may think that's fine, but I don't.

sergeykish5y ago

Your words

> Name and shame

> they should quit

That's why I've called it harmful - choice between your complains and people writing code is obvious. Fork it, patch it, there is no burden - if people care maintainers would switch, if switched enough patch would get in upstream. Or provide own repository with patches, that's FOSS way. If not by yourself than sponsor.

How much do you actually care? How much would you pay? Is it free as speech or free as beer?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse