What Linux can learn from Windows...

From: Tommy Li (realitymage_at_softhome.netSPAM)
Date: 09/15/03 

Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:44:50 GMT

Hello,

Linux in general is a superior operating system to Windows, but I feel that
there are some things that Windows does better. In particular, I'm talking about
certain aspects of the directory structure.

Linux's directory structure makes more sense than Windows' overall. There are no
primitive notions of "drives" or what have you. However, there are two things
that irk me.

There is a lack of a unifed place to store program settings and information.
Currently, settings are scattered about the system in text files, XML, or in
other cryptic formats. This makes configuring a system somewhat of a pain. You
must memorize the names and locations of files, and what they configure. On top
of that, there are many different formats used for configuration, from XML, to
the ALSA asoundrc format, to god knows what.

Windows (back in 95, I think) used to have something like this, where
information was stored in INI files. I would have to say that the Windows
registry was great (mostly, since some of the applications still didn't follow
the registry standards). All the configuration everywhere could be edited with
one editor, and it was easy to find where your programs kept their settings
(assuming they followed the standards).

Perhaps we could adopt something like this. People could write their own
programs to edit the registry, and it would be much easier to edit
configurations like now. Instead of "/etc/fstab", people would just use their
favorite registry editor, and navigate to "Local System -> Mount Points" or
whatever. Backwards compatibility could probably be maintained for the hardcore
old-timers: programs should be able still configured from virtual files editable
by text editors.

The other thing that bothers me is the fact that there isn't really a set place
to install programs (as we discussed throughly in that last old topic). Windows
partially solved that problem with the Program Files folder. In Linux, there are
many different standards for this with may programs not follwing any of them. As
a result, chaos ensues.

I think we should do something about this with Linux. From a conceptual
viewpoint, there are to approaches to organization of applications: grouping by
application, or grouping by application component type. Windows does the first
(generally), and keeps everything in it's own folder under "Program Files".
Linux does the latter, and scatters the program files in "/usr/local/bin/",
"/usr/local/lib/", "/usr/local/doc/", etc.

Both approaches have their pros and cons. On the one hand, you can access
everything related to a program from a single directory. On the other hand, all
the documentation, libraries, and binaries will be in one place. I believe, with
clever use of symbolic links, we can get the advantages of both.

Makefiles should be able to be set with a flag to install to /opt and create
symbolic links from, "/usr/doc/appname/" to "/opt/appname/doc/".

Another option is to have Makefiles install in the normal linux convention,
create a directory of "/opt/appname/", and make symbolic links within
"/opt/appname/" to "/usr/local/bin/appname/", "/usr/local/doc/appname/", and
other files related to the application. This way, all the application files
could be accessed (and deleted) from one place.

Both of the above solutions seem pretty good. Perhaps there should be an option
with all Makefiles, so the user can choose. Users could set a default in the
$INSTALLMETHOD enviroment variable, or something.

What do you think, guys? 

-- 
Tommy C. Li   |   RealityMage   |      realitymage@softhome.net
Registered Linux User # 327563  |  http://www.impulsestorm.com/

Relevant Pages

  • >>>> INSTALL LINUX <<<<
    ... Linux Http Install Syntax ... Install Linux On Usb In Windows ...
    (comp.mail.sendmail)
  • Re: eMachines OEM XP woes - time to buy $tandard?
    ... >>> under Windoze. ... Let's say one wants to install NVU. ... Now show how much easier it is to install MS Office on Linux than ... Windows OS's from Win3.1 to Windows 2003 Server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: bad experience with Suse 9.1 on Inspiron 8200
    ... > it is an M$ bug, such technicalities are irrelevant to the end user. ... :-) Windows has ... work as long as they work, trying to install a nitrous ... Linux are at least a *little* bit curious about how their computer works ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Subject: Re: Linux sucks?
    ... > the applications I run in my field do not run on Linux. ... I have cygwin on Windows ... so Windows users only hit this rarely at install. ... XP users hit this when they add hardware and the 'automatic ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Linux, the final decision
    ... >> how Windows deals with an analogous situation. ... > That drivers have access to the gui is not a hard and fast rule. ... >> Unreal engines can run under Linux. ... no one has to install Windows because the ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)