Golang puts shit specifically in $HOME/go. Not even .go. Just plain go.
Why is it so difficult to follow industry standards
That's what happens when you don't set $GOPATH I think
That doesn't make it better.
It makes it insofar better to me that you have the option to change it. You can't change Mozilla programs to use anything but .mozilla (apart from modifying the source code of course) so for me seeing the folder is at least a way of telling me that the variable is unset.
The better question is which folder is suited the best to store the stuff that goes into $GOPATH
Just because something is worse, doesn't make the other thing good. A sane and standard default, as others have mentioned, is a small bar to meet.
Of course, but that's not the point. There should be a sane default, and there isn't one
Go pisses me off with that. I separate projects the way I want but go wants every project written in go in one big directory?
Shout out to xdg-ninja - it'll find files that are in your home and suggest how to configure the app to use XDG instead. https://github.com/b3nj5m1n/xdg-ninja
Strange that some apps allow configuring it rather than just doing it automatically...
I wish they used them all, especially XDG_CACHE_HOME which can become pretty big pretty fast.
And i wish there was a separate XDG_LOG_HOME or $HOME/.local/log, with logrotate preconfigured to look there.
100% agree and I also despise devs who do this on windows, instead of using %appdata% they’re using c:\users\username\.myappisimportantandtotallydeservesthisdir
I have to use a separate Documents folder for my actual documents lol
I didn't know about this (and thankfully, haven't written anything public). I've been trying to fix an install script for an OSS project that doesn't work on immutable distros, and using the XDG Base Directory specs might just be the panacea I was looking for!
Where did i read this... basically, the .file being hidden being a bug in the early unix filesystem, which got misused to hide configuration files.
Offenders despite XDG-variables set and with no workaround:
Here is a more concise way to achieve the same thing:
ls -ACd ~/.??*/ | sed -e "s#$HOME/##g"
This would just further complicate things for me. It assumes that 1) the system even has a windowing system/desktop environment or 2) all the installed software is XDG-aware. Most of the time I’m fiddling with headless environments.
It's not too hard to check for XDG support first and use a few hardcoded directory paths if that is unavailable.
It’s even easier to ignore it altogether, which is what I do. I don’t use “a few” non-XDG-aware things; I use lots an lots of them.
Are you saying that you don't want to write your software according to the XDG spec, or that you don't want to set the XDG env vars on your system? If it's the second that's fine - apps using XDG work just fine if you ignore it. If it's the first I'd suggest reconsidering because XDG can make things much easier for users of your software who have system setups or preferences that are different from yours; and using XDG doesn't cause problems for users who ignore it.
OP's recommendation is aimed mostly at software authors.
So yes, "XDG" stands for "Cross-Desktop Group" - but I don't agree that using the spec assumes a windowing system. The base directory spec involves checking for certain environment variables for guidance on where to put files, and falling back to certain defaults if those variables are not set. It works fine on headless systems, and on systems that are not XDG-aware (I suppose that means systems that don't set the relevant env vars).
OTOH as another commenter pointed out the base directory spec can make software work when it otherwise wouldn't on a system that doesn't have a typical home directory layout or permissions.
The spec doesn't make those assumptions at all, idk where that's coming from.
I have headless machines with XDG vars configured and ones without them. XDG compliant software works in either case, but I'm less likely to use a piece of software that clutters my $HOME.
My fellow FOSS users, patches are welcome.
Whatever happened to Linux being all about choice? Do you want that or not?
You can choose any home directory you want, as long as it's XDG_CONFIG_HOME.
Are there other relevant standards? The XDG base directory specification has been around for a long time, and is well established.
Maybe your comment wooshed over my head; if so I apologize.
Choice, huh? I can't choose where the config files are stored unless I am willing to either dig into an obscure setting, modify the source code and recompile (repeat every time there's an update), or contact the developer's smug beard using smoke signals.
there's no place like 127.0.0.1
there's no place like XDG_CONFIG_HOME.
But what's the difference? It'll be in /home anyways and I heard BSD had some issues with something that could be XDG.
For me personally I just hate that I do not know where to find configs, especially when using a dotfiles repo, it becomes harder than if they're all available under a common path.
Better organization and backup / restore. For example if you want to restore config files but don't want to move over the large ".local" folder, applications that write to $HOME will create diifculty.
Because, like /etc, you know there is a designated place for config files. It's already set for you right there, and there is a standard for it.
But what’s the difference?
I can only imagine someone asking this if they a) don't use the terminal except if Stackexchange says they should and b) have yet to try and cleanup a system that's acquired cruft over a few years. If you don't care about it, then let me flip that around and ask why you care if people use XDG? The people who care about it are the people in the spaces that concern it.
Off the top of my head this matters because:
It’ll be in /home anyways and I heard BSD had some issues with something that could be XDG.
🙄
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.
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?
Probably half the entries in that list are not GUI apps, and XDG doesn't apply (though some still support it). For some others there (like emacs) XDG is used if it exists.
XDG doesn't apply for CLI apps? About half of dirs I still have cluttering my home are GUI apps whose devs refuse to follow the specification, while I see less friction from CLI/TUI devs, since they're the ones actually seeing these hidden locations.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
