[LBo] uninstall OS

[Randy Kramer]

On Tuesday 03 April 2007 08:38 am, Sam Morgan wrote:
> suggestion, if you plan to play with various distros, you might creating 4 
> partitions
> swap
> /
> /home
> /hold
> 
> swap would be there for any and all your installs
> 
> / would be formated with each new distro you install
> 
> /home would also be formated for each newly installed distro
> 
> /hold would be kept across installs as a place to keep various files you 
wanted 
> from the previous distro(s) like text files in your /home or /etc/ 
configuration 
> files that you worked so hard on and would like to have to reference back to 
> when you are configuring your next install

I like this approach.  A lot--it's basically what I use, except:

   * I call /hold /rhk
   * I try to work in the /hold (/rhk) directory, that is: save all my data 
there "originally" rather than move it from /home to /hold (/rhk)--that is 
not as convenient as I'd like.

IMHO, it is unfortunate that Linux doesn't make this easier for you, and that 
Linux, by default mixes your configuration data and real user data in the 
same directory (/home/<user>).

Ways Linux could make it easier:
   * allow you to specify a "home" directory for your data (separate from your 
home directory for configuration
   * over time, have applications start to look for and use that data home 
directory by default (for storing data)
   * give you a shortcut, analogous to ~ to let you easily work with that data 
home directory

Occasionally I try to make this suggestion one place or another.  I don't seem 
to be making much headway.

What are the objections I've received to this suggestion?  Well, I should have 
a better memory, or go back and look for them.  But, to the best of my 
knowledge they have all been on the order of "hey, this is the way it's 
always been, *please* don't suggest changing it" (with the same tone as RTFM 
is usually written in).

Well, there is one somewhat valid objection that's been voiced--if you are 
running a multiuser or networked system, it is somewhat easier to only have 
to share (or back up, or whatever) the /home directory rather than /home and 
some other directory.  (Oops, I missed part of my suggestion--I usually 
suggest that the new directory be something like /data with user directories 
within it for each user, i.e., like /home.  I.e., for me, /data/rhk (with my 
home directory being /home/rhk).)

Am I ranting, well, at least a little ;-)

Should I extend my rant?  Probably not, but...

I sometimes see this as a sort of attitude where (in Linux) the user is 
considered to be a 2nd class citizen, and the computer and its sysadmins are 
the 1st class citizens.  

What I discussed above is one example.  The computer gets to use 
the  /, /usr, /boot, /proc, /bin, /sbin, /tmp, /dev, /lib, /sys, /etc, /opt, /var 
and whatever other directories to segregate its files in a logical fashion, 
and dumps the user in a namespace (/home/<user>) where configuration files 
are artificially segregated from his data files by hiding them (the 
leading .).

Trying to get away from ranting:

At one point I thought the FHS was going to address this by specifying the 
$XDG directories--it sounded like one set would be for data and one for 
configuration, and it is, but is is all from the point of view of X.  In 
other words, what is considered data in that configuration (at least by the 
people I've seen adopting those directories) are things like icons (i.e., 
data for the desktop/system), not user's data files.

But one final statement that might sound like a rant:

As long as Linux treats the user like a 2nd class citizen, it will have a 
long(er) row to hoe (than if it made life easier for the user).  The 2nd 
class citizen approach might be understandable to some extent on multiuser 
(and networked) systems, but when it is my personal computer, without other 
users, give me a break.

Randy Kramer