[lsb-discuss] Thinking about future LSB features

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message 
<FE028D69955796489B510CE43DBBE80319279CA7 at rrsmsx503.amr.corp.intel.com>, 
"Wichmann, Mats D" <mats.d.wichmann at intel.com> writes
>
>As we think about the activities for the LSB meeting around
>the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit, I'd like to suggest
>that we get as many possible new LSB features onto a list
>ahead of time as we can.  To me, it's always easier to do
>discussions in a large-ish forum if there are some ideas
>already on paper, rather than just blindly opening the
>floor and hoping that drives a productive discussion.
>
>So just to start that particular ball rolling, let's ask
>again what are the pain points that LSB 4.0 doesn't address?
>We do have some saved issues that didn't get addressed,
>and some subset of those will likely be on the list for
>the next version of LSB, but rather than trot those out
>here I'd like to do a one-time query "fresh".
>
>What would make LSB more useful to you?
>
Throwing in a more "end user" point of view, and probably in the totally 
wrong forum (I suspect it belongs in the FHS), but "get rid of all those 
config files in ~".

Various reasons. I know disks and filesystems are a lot faster now, but 
cluttering up ~ impacts EVERY program that that accesses user files.

And as a technical user, in Windows I normally tell it to display ALL 
files, WITH extensions (ie over-ride the "hide stuff" defaults). Much as 
I don't like the way Windows does most things, "Documents & Settings" is 
implemented much better than /home in that respect. (Yes I know, 
historical precedent ... ...)

I think all user config files should be in a mirror of /etc, called 
either ~/etc or (probably better) ~/.etc. The actual location should be 
a soft option defined in the /etc config file :-)

It might be a good idea to define other default directories under ~ too, 
a bit like "Application Data" et cetera et cetera.

Cheers,
Wol
-- 
Anthony W. Youngman - anthony at thewolery.demon.co.uk