AFAIK appdata are stored in ~/.local/share, but you don’t even have that folder!?!?!
It’s not the Linux convention that’s fucked up in this regard, but your system.
If you want it stored in ~/AppData, you need to make a link to it from ~/.local/share.
I’m no expert, so there may be other ways to do it. but apparently your system doesn’t follow conventions.
But while we’re on the subject, ~/.local/share is cancer and shouldn’t exist.
The appropriate path is /usr/share.
EDIT: Okay to be clear I mean that anything that could be global should go into /usr/share and massively save on space and effort if another user needs the same stuff.
Anything that doesn’t need to be global doesn’t need to go into /use/share but somewhere else in ~/.
The way it is now my ~/.local is a massive dumping ground of crap from configs to static app resources that should go into /usr/share to entire applications with snap or flatpak (why I don’t use them) to random config files.
It’s just a nasty mess on my home partition when it in most cases really doesn’t need to be.
Users below rightfully pointed out many exceptions like venvs and while I still believe there should be a more correct place for them to go e.g. (~/.venv, ~/.flatpak), but obviously they shouldn’t go into /usr/share willy-nilly.
I have removed the sass below because I should’ve been more comprehensive in my criticism before ad-hominem.
I’m a little confused by that statement. Where should locally installed (non-sudo) applications, such as virtual python envs who are accessed by multiple other not-necessarily-python apps or perhaps baloo, flatpak, etc, store their shared data? I’m rather convinced that giving all users write access to /usr/share is a terrible idea.
AFAIK appdata are stored in ~/.local/share, but you don’t even have that folder!?!?!
It’s not the Linux convention that’s fucked up in this regard, but your system.
If you want it stored in ~/AppData, you need to make a link to it from ~/.local/share.
I’m no expert, so there may be other ways to do it. but apparently your system doesn’t follow conventions.
He’s using Windows
WHAT? So he chose an OS that doesn’t follow Linux standard on PURPOSE?!?! That doesn’t make much sense. 😋
I even have a couple of things that found ~/.local but missed /share
He’s using windows.
But while we’re on the subject, ~/.local/share is cancer and shouldn’t exist.
The appropriate path is /usr/share.
EDIT: Okay to be clear I mean that anything that could be global should go into /usr/share and massively save on space and effort if another user needs the same stuff.
Anything that doesn’t need to be global doesn’t need to go into /use/share but somewhere else in ~/.
The way it is now my ~/.local is a massive dumping ground of crap from configs to static app resources that should go into /usr/share to entire applications with snap or flatpak (why I don’t use them) to random config files.
It’s just a nasty mess on my home partition when it in most cases really doesn’t need to be.
Users below rightfully pointed out many exceptions like venvs and while I still believe there should be a more correct place for them to go e.g. (~/.venv, ~/.flatpak), but obviously they shouldn’t go into /usr/share willy-nilly.
I have removed the sass below because I should’ve been more comprehensive in my criticism before ad-hominem.
That’s a global folder, and not proper for storing “per user” data.
The irony is how lennart and his cancer approached standards, top to bottom.
Now I want McRibs.
I’m a little confused by that statement. Where should locally installed (non-sudo) applications, such as virtual python envs who are accessed by multiple other not-necessarily-python apps or perhaps baloo, flatpak, etc, store their shared data? I’m rather convinced that giving all users write access to /usr/share is a terrible idea.
/usr/share? How is a random app getting write permissions to that?