There is a push to move program configuration files for $HOME into .config/program then leaving the file itself unhidden.

"I've never liked the configuration files being hidden. It's freaking annoying"

$ ls -a

or most GUI browser it is an option in the right-click menu.

Really Linux does not have "hidden" files, it has configuration files which it hides, but they are always easy to view unlike in Windows.

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei at erdani.com> wrote:
> Correct. That's what I've always meant: only hide the file in $HOME.
>
> Andrei
>
> On 1/28/11 9:21 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 09:14:26AM -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>
>>> It doesn't quite matter what you and I like or not. Everybody on Unix does it that way ever since .profile.
>>
>> If the file is in $HOME, and sometimes if in the current working directory.
>>
>> program.conf is common if the file resides in its own directory (including dot directories under home) or /etc.
>>
>> The website lists these locations:
>>
>> 1.current working directory
>> 2.directory specified by the HOME environment variable
>> 3.directory dmd resides in
>> 4./etc/
>>
>> (1) and (2) might be renamed, but (3) and (4) certainly shouldn't be.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> phobos mailing list
>> phobos at puremagic.com
>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>



-- 
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. ? - George Bernard Shaw

They're not hard to view in Windows either.  Just set Explorer to show hidden and system files in folder options.

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Jesse Phillips <jesse.k.phillips at gmail.com>wrote:

> There is a push to move program configuration files for $HOME into .config/program then leaving the file itself unhidden.
>
> "I've never liked the configuration files being hidden. It's freaking annoying"
>
> $ ls -a
>
> or most GUI browser it is an option in the right-click menu.
>
> Really Linux does not have "hidden" files, it has configuration files which it hides, but they are always easy to view unlike in Windows.
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei at erdani.com> wrote:
> > Correct. That's what I've always meant: only hide the file in $HOME.
> >
> > Andrei
> >
> > On 1/28/11 9:21 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 09:14:26AM -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't quite matter what you and I like or not. Everybody on Unix does it that way ever since .profile.
> >>
> >> If the file is in $HOME, and sometimes if in the current working directory.
> >>
> >> program.conf is common if the file resides in its own directory
> (including
> >> dot directories under home) or /etc.
> >>
> >> The website lists these locations:
> >>
> >> 1.current working directory
> >> 2.directory specified by the HOME environment variable
> >> 3.directory dmd resides in
> >> 4./etc/
> >>
> >> (1) and (2) might be renamed, but (3) and (4) certainly shouldn't be.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> phobos mailing list
> >> phobos at puremagic.com
> >> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > phobos mailing list
> > phobos at puremagic.com
> > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
>   - George Bernard Shaw
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/attachments/20110128/c5b1d736/attachment.html>

That wasn't my point, the point was that they usually stay out of your way until you request to see them. In Windows you can show them, but the option is no readily available when you want to see them, like in a file open dialog. Windows is more all or nothing and never what you want.

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:27 AM, David Simcha <dsimcha at gmail.com> wrote:
> They're not hard to view in Windows either.? Just set Explorer to show hidden and system files in folder options.

Jesse Phillips wrote:
> "I've never liked the configuration files being hidden. It's freaking annoying"
>
> $ ls -a
> 

Yes, I know about -a, and that I can alias ls to ls -a.

> or most GUI browser it is an option in the right-click menu.
>
> Really Linux does not have "hidden" files, it has configuration files
> which it hides, but they are always easy to view unlike in Windows.
> 

I just don't understand the mentality (Linux or Windows) for hidden files.

On Friday, January 28, 2011 11:14:47 Walter Bright wrote:
> Jesse Phillips wrote:
> > "I've never liked the configuration files being hidden. It's freaking annoying"
> > 
> > $ ls -a
> 
> Yes, I know about -a, and that I can alias ls to ls -a.
> 
> > or most GUI browser it is an option in the right-click menu.
> > 
> > Really Linux does not have "hidden" files, it has configuration files which it hides, but they are always easy to view unlike in Windows.
> 
> I just don't understand the mentality (Linux or Windows) for hidden files.

You generally only want to see them if you're looking for them. Otherwise, they're just annoying. $HOME is typically extremely cluttered with hidden files on Linux, and I'd hate to be seeing all of those hidden normally. If I'm looking for them, I want to be able to see them and access them, but I definitely don't want to see them normally. Now, shoving them all in a .config or config directory would be a big improvement regardless, and maybe then hidden files wouldn't really be necessary. But I _definitely_ don't want all of those hidden files in $HOME to be unhidden.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 01/28/2011 08:22 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> You generally only want to see them if you're looking for them. Otherwise, they're just annoying. $HOME is typically extremely cluttered with hidden files on Linux, and I'd hate to be seeing all of those hidden normally. If I'm looking for them, I want to be able to see them and access them, but I definitely don't want to see them normally. Now, shoving them all in a .config or config directory would be a big improvement regardless, and maybe then hidden files wouldn't really be necessary.

Exactly; there should definitely /config (for /all/ user definable config files). That's one of the numerous points showing how the std Unix filesystem hierarchy is designed for sysadmins, not for users ;-)

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com

On Friday, January 28, 2011 11:26:21 spir wrote:
> On 01/28/2011 08:22 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > You generally only want to see them if you're looking for them. Otherwise, they're just annoying. $HOME is typically extremely cluttered with hidden files on Linux, and I'd hate to be seeing all of those hidden normally. If I'm looking for them, I want to be able to see them and access them, but I definitely don't want to see them normally. Now, shoving them all in a .config or config directory would be a big improvement regardless, and maybe then hidden files wouldn't really be necessary.
> 
> Exactly; there should definitely /config (for /all/ user definable config files). That's one of the numerous points showing how the std Unix filesystem hierarchy is designed for sysadmins, not for users ;-)

And why would I want /config for all users? The config files in $HOME are user- specific and have no business being  system specific. It's /etc that has system specific config files. And maybe /config would have been a better name than /etc, but I don't think that a  name change would help anything at this point. Regardless, I _want_ my user-specific settings to be user-specific. I see _zero_ benefit in putting them in /config. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Friday, January 28, 2011 11:32:37 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, January 28, 2011 11:26:21 spir wrote:
> > On 01/28/2011 08:22 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > > You generally only want to see them if you're looking for them. Otherwise, they're just annoying. $HOME is typically extremely cluttered with hidden files on Linux, and I'd hate to be seeing all of those hidden normally. If I'm looking for them, I want to be able to see them and access them, but I definitely don't want to see them normally. Now, shoving them all in a .config or config directory would be a big improvement regardless, and maybe then hidden files wouldn't really be necessary.
> > 
> > Exactly; there should definitely /config (for /all/ user definable config files). That's one of the numerous points showing how the std Unix filesystem hierarchy is designed for sysadmins, not for users ;-)
> 
> And why would I want /config for all users? The config files in $HOME are user- specific and have no business being  system specific. It's /etc that has system specific config files. And maybe /config would have been a better name than /etc, but I don't think that a  name change would help anything at this point. Regardless, I _want_ my user-specific settings to be user-specific. I see _zero_ benefit in putting them in /config. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Not to mention, by having the config files in my home directory (or some subdirectory thereof), the config files can then be used on multiple Linux installs on the same box. If they were in something like /config, then you'd have to fix them all every time you setup another Linux install on the same box (be it a second/third/etc. install or one which replaces your current install - assuming that /home is on a separate partition). It's annoying enough to have to fix what's in /etc every time that I reinstall Linux. I don't want to have to fix my user settings too.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 1/28/11 1:14 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> I just don't understand the mentality (Linux or Windows) for hidden files.

I don't think it's difficult at all. They are files that you rarely need to look at or edit.

Andrei

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Walter Bright wrote:

> Jesse Phillips wrote:
> > "I've never liked the configuration files being hidden. It's freaking annoying"
> > 
> > $ ls -a
> > 
> 
> Yes, I know about -a, and that I can alias ls to ls -a.
> 
> > or most GUI browser it is an option in the right-click menu.
> > 
> > Really Linux does not have "hidden" files, it has configuration files
> > which it hides, but they are always easy to view unlike in Windows.
> > 
> 
> I just don't understand the mentality (Linux or Windows) for hidden files.

Luckily, conforming to convention doesn't require understanding, just acceptance. :)