[acabal]

Home folder litter is one of my top pet peeves in computing. In fact it's the only reason why I refuse to use snaps on Ubuntu. I don't even care about whatever technical stuff everyone argues about - but snaps create a permanent `~/snap/` directory and Ubuntu devs don't care. There's been a bug report on Launchpad for over a decade[1] and it's the second highest voted bug in Ubuntu history, but no, Ubuntu devs think littering the home folder with highly visible system-level machinery is totally unavoidable.

It's like putting your car's engine in the passenger seat - rude, intolerable, and plain stupid. What if Grandma was browsing her home folder and deleted `~/snap/` because she has no idea what it is?

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/snapd/+bug/1575053

[godelski]

I want to add an addendum to this. There's just so much bad naming everywhere. So often I'll be looking for configs and can't find them because the name of the configs folder isn't remotely the same as that of the program. How is anyone supposed to know? `~/.config/TrollTech.conf`? Are you really telling me you don't expect people to be confused? The only nice thing I can say is that at least it is put in `~/.config` and not `~/.` There's plenty of things with more menacing looking names too.

Hell, it isn't even computers. I bought a monitor from Samsung recently and it showed up in my bank as Hanwha Vision. You google it and you find a wiki page for the company, and read

  > Hanwha Vision (Korean: 한화비전), founded as Samsung Techwin, is a video surveillance company.

or you look at the parent company, which was originally Korea Explosives. Seriously, if fucking In N Out can show up as "IN N OUT <LOCATION>" they can just show up as "Samsung" or something else actually meaningful.

I know there's 2 problems in computer science but there's a huge difference between not having a good name and having a misleading name. And don't get me started on emails. People wonder why there's so much fraud, but I'm just impressed there isn't more. The normal way things work makes it hard to distinguish things from fraud. We've just created a world where the signal is impossible to distinguish from the noise because we decided it was a good idea to obfuscate the signal...

[andOlga]

This is why Linux needs a sensible, universal way to hide files that doesn't involve bloody renaming them (since that will just cause the original one to be re-created! What is that!?). Many file managers respect the .hidden file, which is a start! But it's not enough, shells and `ls` don't care. It's one of those many strange failures that make Linux on the desktop still painful to use.

[poly2it]

On topic of hidden files: wherefrom is the pattern of treating configuration files as hidden? I'm referring to the pattern of `.configfile` -- I mean, for code projects, a local config file is a first-level construct. This leads to hidden files being not being a viable construct, as there is no longer any consensus on what should be hidden.

[andOlga]

I don't know the answer to this, but I have to wonder if, for source files specifiically, .git is the culprit here... It's not part of your project, it's part of your repo. Which maybe makes sense if people ever divorced their source code from the repo but that's not a thing anymore. Others probably just copied it.