undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrapind2y ago0 comments

What's always annoyed me with many operating systems is this need to organize based on function instead of domain. If I install an application named "Bob" then I want ALL of Bob's configuration to live within Bob. I don't want it split between different registry keys or /usr/local, /etc/, /var, /lib, etc.

I'm fine with there being conventions and categorizations, but I'd like to root node to be the application itself. Yes, I even want this for multiple users.

I know there are design arguments to / for the various different ways of organizing configurations, but IMO they are just inferior from at least this user's perspective.

0 comments

8 comments · 5 top-level

hcarvalhoalves2y ago· 2 in thread

This exists for a while now, but didn't catch on:

https://gobolinux.org/at_a_glance.html

dreamcompiler2y ago

That's largely what MacOS does.

rapindOP2y ago

Yes exactly.

Brian_K_White2y ago· 1 in thread

That would be a directory called /bob right in the root dir, containing everything relating to tge bob app, including the firewall settings, both the distro defaults and the user layered, the executables, the image resources, the db libraries, the db store... never mind that the firewall is another package that needs those same settings...

No.

Or, if you really do want something so insane, well great news, you have snap and flatpak. If those are not complete enough examples of this shining vision, go ahead and show us how it's done.

spoiler2y ago

You're constructing an argument the person never made.

The binary for my app could live in a hypothetical /apps/bob.

Its config could be in there too.

There's no need to duplicate dynamically linked system libraries in there.

If the app need a different version of a library than the one provided by the distro/os, it could vendor it (or link statically). Optionally it can vendor and still try to use OS version if they version is satisfied, but this is just a memory optimisation (disk isn't that expensive).

There's also no need to place firewall rules in there. I'm not sure where you got that from. Firewalls are beyond the scope of a single application?

As for making thing system-wide available, there's already a few solutions for this (symlinks being a very backwards compatible way of doing this on nixes).

For all its faults and poor UX execution (albeit, maybe things improved since I last used them) flat pack and snap have some good ideas!

1 more reply

tremon2y ago

You are correct, from a user's perspective this seems like unnecessary complexity. But here on the system administration side of Chesterton's fence, these splits enable more secure, more robust and more reliable systems. Among others, this allows for improved backup and recovery, better storage efficiency, easier application of security patches and providing centralized configuration.

Someone12342y ago

I think for all future development, the industry agrees with you. Chromeium, iOS, Android, and Windows Store apps all utilize packages and per-package storage.

We're just suffering from backwards compatibility for things made over 30-years ago.

sokoloff2y ago

I like being able to use revision control to track config changes mostly in one place (/etc), using etckeeper.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse