Anubis, Icaros, and XAmiga...

[aperez]

Who do the Anubis people (hmm sounds like a '50s sci fi film) hate Amiga users so much?  Clearly there's a lot of bad blood.  Anubis/Arix is an odd man out, if it's built it will not be an Amiga and it will be a Linux, but a Linux that is incompatible with all other Linuxes.  Great.  Maybe it should be called PlatypOS...

Persia,

Vitriol from either side is far from helpful, but let me clarify that Anubis will retain a usable level of compatibility with the standard Linux filesystem hierarchy. Especially in the beginning, our focus needs to be on usability. I invite you, and anyone else who is interested, to participate in the project.

For those of you who feel the need to argue over the semantics of whether or not Anubis does or does not constitute a Linux distribution, go at it all you want. It's ultimately a waste of your time as well as the other participants on this forum who have to scroll past/ignore your drivel. As the old adage goes, if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all.

In they end I suppose they're all charity OSs, AmigaDOs, AROS, MOS, Anubis, but as they say on Sesame Street, one of these thing is not like the other...  Anubis belongs in the "Alternative Operating Systems" discussion.  They need a charity OS over there too!

Once again, arguing over semantics is not getting anyone anywhere. I see no reason why Anubis shouldn't include a minimal version of hosted-AROS, along with E-UAE, "out of the box" as it were. The perception that there's somehow bad blood between these projects is entirely of your own creation.

Additionally, my hat is off to Piru and the entire MorphOS team. They have built a stable, quality product and deserve my respect. Their passion and steadfastness over the years is to be lauded, if you ask me.

[aperez]

Persia, you're a little late to the party, as usual, but the so-called "Linux" filesystem to which you refer is really nothing more than an inherited directory structure from much older unices which predate BSD and Linux by a good 15-20 years. I use and administer hundreds of Linux servers each day, and in that context, the directory structure is acceptable, if not ideal. However, it is very un-user-friendly and unnecessarily complex for your average home user.  The other issue that many have with it is that manual removal of applications requires one to delete files from upwards of a half-dozen to potentially a dozen different directories. Bundling related units more closely makes a greater amount of sense. This is what Application Bundles did in the OpenStep specification, and before that, in NeXTSTEP (OpenStep was a codified version of most of the APIs which were originally developed in NeXTSTEP. The resources for a given application should be contained within an application bundle itself (which is, in the case of OpenStep and OS X, simply a directory which is handled in a special manner by default by the file manager). The codified Linux FHS requires that application resources be in /usr/share, etc. This makes no sense to a casual user, and is actually extremely unintuitive.