What do you want MX25 to be.?

[Melber]

I would say we should not do either, if users want things to be launched directly from ~/bin or ~/.local/bin they should add that to their PATH so they should be aware when they type something in the command prompt it might be launched from there and not from /usr/bin as it would normally happen.

+1

[CharlesV]

I would say we should not do either, if users want things to be launched directly from ~/bin or ~/.local/bin they should add that to their PATH so they should be aware when they type something in the command prompt it might be launched from there and not from /usr/bin as it would normally happen.

+1 also

[m_pav]

If you have two USB devices, and you reboot, they might switch places in the record.
There is a fix for that I haven't digged into yet but maybe someone has an idea about if it will be easy or hard to make a tool that can somehow do the job smart.?

Users have 2 choices here.

1) If they desire legacy nomenclature, they can go back to MX-16 where their desires will be largely met, though even then, the writing was on the wall ....
or

2) get with the program and realise those days are long done. Use a combination of partition labels for your mount points and use the partition UUID as the identifier when you write the entries into fstab. This is VERY easy to do and they only have to exist in fstab for them to always get the same mount point, they do not have to be available at boot and they do not have to be auto-mounted.

[AK-47]

So let me try a little math.... we had 10GWh and spent four too soon on problems and bugs and missing backward compatibility (very scary) in software from other vendors. And a little more here and there, and two more on some basic important stuff...
Since we saved 3GWh by waiting with safeboot we have about 2GWh developer power left for the "cream" to put on MX25

Where are you pulling these numbers from, exactly? I didn't know that MX Linux was a nuclear power plant.

[Jerry3904]

There coming from where the sun doesn't shine

[siamhie]

siamhie

Than you for asking.
There is more to it. You can see the request about PATH here:
viewtopic.php?t=75245

I am already using it and I have a "~/bin" directory so my PATH goes like this:

Code: Select all

/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/local/games:/usr/games:/home/my-username/bin

@Jakob77 Why don't you just use /usr/local/bin for your scripts/binaries?

/usr/local/bin
Binaries for programs local to the site.

https://www.baeldung.com/linux/differen ... -usr-local

[Jakob77]

Adrian

Thank you for your response. :-)
About PATH I will prefer both to none...... so here we stand. lol
I can't imagine who would create the directory "~/bin" and put executable files in there and run them by name in Terminal... all by accident.
I don't have "~/.local/bin" and I hardly backup the folder "~/.local"
I enjoy easy access to my scripts in "~/bin"

About executing the wrong files because the user is a fool and use a script filename that is the same as another more important program....
The cure for that seems easy if we just do it right (not like Mint did) and put "~/bin" in the end of PATH

Like this:

/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/local/games:/usr/games:/home/my_username/bin

Right.? :-)

However when you write about spooky things maybe it would be a good idea to make the permissions tighter for "~/bin"
It is very close now that I suggest it is just made in advance.




m_pav

Thank you.
So it is too complicated or not possible to make an easy going tool for it.?



AK-47

I wrote "pure fiction" but take a look at your avatar. lol

[siamhie]

Adrian

Thank you for your response. :-)
About PATH I will prefer both to none...... so here we stand. lol

@Jakob77 Then add this to the end of your .bashrc file.

Bob's your uncle

Code: Select all

# set PATH so it includes user's private bin if it exists
if [ -d "$HOME/bin" ] ; then
    PATH="$HOME/bin:$PATH"
fi

# set PATH so it includes user's private bin if it exists
if [ -d "$HOME/.local/bin" ] ; then
    PATH="$HOME/.local/bin:$PATH"
fi

[Jakob77]

siamhie

I don't know Bob but If you dig in deeper I believe you will see that it is not a satisfying solution because it will not include a functional PATH for launchers on the Xfce Desktop.

[siamhie]

siamhie

I don't know Bob

It's a phrase.

"Bob's your uncle" is an idiom commonly used in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries that means "and there it is", or "and there you have it", or "it's done".
Typically, someone says it to conclude a set of simple instructions or when a result is reached.

but If you dig in deeper I believe you will see that it is not a satisfying solution because it will not include a functional PATH for launchers on the Xfce Desktop.

I'm not on XFCE, so give me an example of the path for the executable.