[exceptione]

Congratulations, you are in the top 10% for being a professional developer, correcting mistakes and not coming up with shitty excuses.

If people from this thread took notice we all could have a clean $HOME and there would be no need for this non-discussion. As you found out, it is incredibly easy to conform to the spec.

[rascul]

I had a clean $HOME before XDG came around. Now it's a mess.

[wink]

That makes no sense. You should at most have a single directory `~/.config` more and I suppose 90% of the tools writing or reading there could be configured to use ~/.${TOOL}rc

[SAI_Peregrinus]

XDG didn't (IMO) make things worse, but it also didn't help as much as it should have. My `~/.config` is the largest subdirectory of `~`, because every Chromium/Electron-based application uses `${XDG_CONFIG_HOME}/$APP_NAME/Service Worker/CacheStorage` and `${XDG_CONFIG_HOME}/$APP_NAME/Cache` (and a few other cache directories) instead of sticking those in `${XDG_CACHE_HOME}/$APP_NAME`.

[exceptione]

Have you filed a bug report?

[deviantintegral]

Open since 2016! https://github.com/electron/electron/issues/8124

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Exactly. It's never getting fixed, it'd break backwards compatibility now!

It's especially frustrating because it means you can't simply back up your entire `~/.config` (or wherever you pointed your `${XDG_CONFIG_HOME}`), you have to pick specific files & folders in there.

[rascul]

I considered it clean when everything had a single file or directory in $HOME. Some things didn't play nice but they were the exception. Now it might be that, or there might be files scattered among one or more XDG directories.

[exceptione]

You cannot redefine words to the opposite meaning. If you want to lump everything together then Linux is not your friend.

On Linux we separate stuff so you can for instance backup config without having to figure out for each of 100 applications where they have stored config in 100 heaps of mud.

And you are sidestepping the issue of control. With XDG you can easily and generically symlink your 100 balls of mud back with 3 lines of bash. That's because with XDG you have structure. The other way around you don´t. So don´t talk about `clean`.

[rascul]

> You cannot redefine words to the opposite meaning.

I'm not. Lots of things in a directory is not inherently a mess. I mentioned exceptions, things such as bash and steam make a mess because they're not completely cleanly filed away in their own directory. In my experience most things (not all) that don't use XDG are happy to cleanly files their stuff away in its own directory, sometimes divided up further into subdirectories when it makes sense. Or a single file instead of a directory if there will only be one file.

> If you want to lump everything together then Linux is not your friend.

I don't need to be friends with a kernel, and anyway, this practice has been around on Linux longer than XDG has existed. I see no reason why it won't continue to work just fine in the future.

> On Linux we separate stuff so you can for instance backup config without having to figure out for each of 100 applications where they have stored config in 100 heaps of mud.

People use Linux in different fashions. You're free to use it how you want and I'm free to use it how I want it. Your backup scheme is not suitable for me, and I suspect mine is not suitable for you. And that's OK.

> And you are sidestepping the issue of control. With XDG you can easily and generically symlink your 100 balls of mud back with 3 lines of bash. That's because with XDG you have structure. The other way around you don´t. So don´t talk about `clean`.

Most applications in my experience have a mechanism to define where configuration is read from. That's control, not your symlink mess. Structure is done appropriately per application.

It's fine if you disagree with me. It bothers me when I'm told that my opinions are wrong, which is what your post reads like to me.