Shameless plug: I am the author.

  • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 个月前

    Someone asking a question doesnt merit the insult of saying they “would never ask if they used a terminal.” I have no particular dog in this fight, but not being a dick isn’t that hard.

    As to using this standard, just because this is your preferred standard, doesnt mean its the only standard.

    It may actually be the best now, but so were the 14 others that came before it. Your stated reasons are the same reasons as everyone agreeing to use any other standard. Consistency, predictability, automation,ease of backup/restore, etc.

    What sets this standard apart from all the rest? Based on their own description, they aren’t even an official standard, just one in “very active” use.

    So why this, specifically? Just because its what you’re already doing?

    • SmokeInFog@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 个月前

      Someone asking a question doesnt merit the insult of saying they “would never ask if they used a terminal.” I have no particular dog in this fight, but not being a dick isn’t that hard.

      This is true, and something that I’m working on. For some reason my brain is uncharitable in these situations and I interpret it not as a simple question but a sarcastically hostile put down in the form of a question. In this case, “Why would you be dumb and not just put things in /home”. That really is a silly interpretation of the OP question, so I apologize.

      As to using this standard, just because this is your preferred standard, doesnt mean its the only standard.

      Sure, but the OP was essentially asking “Why isn’t dumping everything into a user’s /home the standard? Why are you advocating for something different?”

      Based on their own description, they aren’t even an official standard, just one in “very active” use.

      There are a LOT of “unofficial standards” that are very impactful. System D can be considered among those. The page you link to does talk about a lot of specifications, but it also says that a lot of them are already under the XDG specification or the reason for XDG is to bring such a scheme under a single specification, i.e. XDG.

      So why this, specifically? Just because its what you’re already doing?

      • yes I do use it, so I am definitely biased in that regard
      • it bring a bunch of disparate mostly abandoned specification into a single, active one
      • it’s the active specification that has learned from past attempts