I like the idea behind #GoboLinux, but I'm curious about how it actually shakes out in practice.
IMO the nix-like filesystem hierarchy has always been kind of bad for non-technical users, and can even be confusing for those who do have a lot of experience with it.
@deadsuperhero well enough. I like the Unix hierarchy now, but probably would have latched on to Gobo when I was first starting with Linux.
I'm considering sticking it on some boxes which only support a single drive, but otherwise I like the standard hierarchy's possibilities for crazy mount schemes.
don't understand the appeal here. like, if you want things to be easy and to not worry about what files belong to what, package managers exist.
and then, if you do have some idea what's going on and want to start editing sys-wide configs, package managers still exist (can easily show you what package owns a file or what files are in a package)
also, "Programs" is kind of annoying. firstly because of the capital P, but also because not everything is a "Program".
like, some things are libraries, some things are headers, some things are documentation or configs for other things or fonts or just whatever data. these would all have to either live outside the "Programs" classification, in which case it's not universal and is a barrier in the way of actually getting what's going on, or be paired with an existing "Program", which is misleading and potentially dangerous