On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Rick Engebretson wrote:
> Pardon me for being dumb, but a major hurdle to learning Linux is the
> directory. The file  abbreviations are made for the text console and
> keyboard, but with a nice GUI a descriptive name system would really
> help.
>
> Also, the directory tree seems less than hierarcical.
>
> I'm using old SuSE 6.4. I've played with old and new Gnome, and old and
> new KDE. The stylistic "Nautilus" and "Konqueror" are dubious file
> manager improvements.
>
> MS Windows (since 3.0) does have a very clean directory and system
> configuration structure. I realize this is an apples and oranges
> comparison. But even simple configuration of Linux isn't simple.

Uh, excuse me?

Have you looked at all the kludge that piles up in c:\winnt lately?

Can you explain what every single directory in c:\winnt does, and where
you should put file(s) when you need to do things?

Also, what's the point of c:, d:, e:, f:, etc? It makes so much more sense
to have stuff mounted in one large namespace instead of splitting it up
like that.

I'll take the UNIX-style file naming system any day.. it's logical. Maybe
a bit of a learning curve, but at least things generally follow some
order, and you can tell why things go where they do.

-- 
Nate Carlson <natecars at real-time.com>   | Phone : (952)943-8700
http://www.real-time.com                | Fax   : (952)943-8500