Re: Can somebody explain the benefits of .d directories
Hans-Peter <thecarpy@aim.com> writes:
> I have an honest question which is dead-simple: Why do we have ".d"
> directories, such as "sources.d" or "grub.d", note that with grub, the
> defaults are in another directory tree - this is simply beyond insane.
Your question there seems less than an honest enquiry – asking for the
reason something has come about – and more a rhetorical device.
What specifically is it you think is “beyond insane”? The only thing you
present that seems to address that is:
> […] the downside being having to parse several files vs a single file
which is surely an implementation detail and a design decision, not
warranting any declaration of insanity. Yet you think it so egregious to
be worthy of hyperbolic insult.
> I seriously think this is nonsense, there is no "logical" reason for
> doing this, afaict. Have I missed something ?
Yes; you've missed the opportunity to ask honestly with the expectation
we might convince you of the reason. At this point you are frustrated
and exasperated, and it seems unlikely you will be receptive to a
discussion of benefits and trade-offs.
For example:
> I have asked the question on unix.stackexchange.com and got silly
> answers trying to defend the "it is so much easier to parse x files in
> a directory than a single file" stance (you gotta be kidding!).
If you're going to dismiss explanations as “silly” and “kidding” without
addressing the content, that is totally at odds with your profession of
enquiry:
> I would really appreciate answers on this […]
You have circumscribed the domain of answers you would be receptive to,
such that it seems – based on your current exasperated hyperbole at the
expsting mundane answers – no mundane explanation will satisfy you.
> I have waited many years before reporting this because I lacked
> confidence, but seriously ...I think this is a bug and it needs to be
> fixed. ".d" is braindead, does not add any functionality that cannot
> be replicated with the "Enter" key on a keyboard and, in the worst
> case, a line starting with # followed by some comment.
On those terms, I would advise anyone not to engage with this
discussion.
Please don't disparage the work of those implementing these systems
unless you are willing to accept that those who implement it get to make
the design decisions, and not dismiss those decisions as “silly”, “you
gotta be kidding”, “braindead”, and “beyond insane” — none of which
engage with the actual design or implementation.
--
\ “Don't be afraid of missing opportunities. Behind every failure |
`\ is an opportunity somebody wishes they had missed.” —Jane |
_o__) Wagner, via Lily Tomlin |
Ben Finney
Reply to: