Footnote to Usability, hierarchies and IO-slaves

It appears that at least one person (Hi Peter!) seems to have misunderstood what I was saying at the end of my last post.

I'm not saying that a new hierarchy should be thought up to supplement (read: in addition to) the current unix filesystem layout. I'm saying that a new hierarchy should completely replace the current unix filesystem layout. This is what GoboLinux and OS X have done. This is also not the same as what system: does. system: is another layer on top of the underlying filesystem layout, which leaves you with a system with a split personality. The GUI presents one version of what the system looks like, while everything below the GUI, such as console programs, uses something completely different.

As for the unix filesystem layout being great for sysadmins and programs, *ahrhumm* I beg to differ. :-) Personally I think it is a relict from the past that should be done away with. To put it lightly. Seriously, the scattergun approach to installing software is a liability requiring dedicated software such as RPM to manage just where the h*ll everything got installed. The only reason why it is still used is backwards compatibility. It has no place on a desktop machine.

(It is probably best that no one ask me what I think of shell scripts. ;-) or what I think of the idea that unix was based on the idea of "small tools doing one task well", emacs and perl anyone?)