You are here

Add new comment

"Symbolic links" are the standard way to customize paths in Linux.
Being standard, they are reliable (It didn't take me months of testing as I thought.).

I have been an exclusively Linux user for more than 15 years.
However, I was unaware that the main functionality of symbolic links was to customize paths.
If there is another clueless person out there like me, the following example may be of help.

Example in the case at hand:
I want to customize ".lv2" not only for Qtractor, but for the entire system locally.


1 I move /home/Iam/.lv2 to /home/Iam/path/I/want/.lv2
2 I rename .lv2 to lv2 so that it is not hidden
3 I create a symbolic link of /home/Iam/path/I/want/lv2 to /home/Iam/.lv2

We can do this with any path that we want to customize.

This is how we get:
1 That everyone can create their own organization of routes adapted to themselves.
2 Simple, traceable and accurate backups.

-- The text below is somewhat boring, and goes off topic. You can ignore it if you want --

Linux allows you to be free, but it will require you to know it in depth.
To know it in depth it will not be easy for you.
Its directory and configuration structure is opaque.
It is "opaque" in an arbitrary and expendable way, it could be "readable."
Rethinking the directory system and configurations from 0 makes sense to me.

Someone sooner or later will end up creating a "readable" GNU/linux by default.
That does not mean that it ends up being the majority standard, nor does it need to be.
Freedom does not work for majorities, but for a sense of good.
And the possibilities of creating a sense of good are endless.
However, it must always respect a free model.

There are concepts implicit in freedom:

1 Self-defined identity: In order to be free you must first be.

2 System integrity: I am me and the relationship of my parts.

3 Independence.

4 Modular Relationship: In freedom there is no hierarchy (order) but organization. The module makes sense on its own when it is related and when it is not. The relationships (paths) must not break the integrity of the module, this is not free. The module must maintain its integrity to be able to freely create other relationships.
When UNIX dismembers an application into bin, share, etc., it makes it difficult for relationships to be established freely.

It could be write a book on "UNIX is not free." It's not opinion, it's logic.
The universe and nature follow a free model and give us many keys to how freedom works.
In nature there is no place where all the leaves of all the trees are.
Another one where all the trunks are, etc...

For freedom, UNIX is a failed organizational model with deep misconceptions.
For slavery and hierarchy it is the perfect model.
(I do not say anything and I say everything).