> I think it might be okay to keep configuration information in .squeak,
> but the image file and the changes file are both fairly large, and
> it's quite valid for a user to move them around, ftp them, etc., as
> well as having multiple images.  The user should be aware of them,
> which is why I don't want them automatically created or named, or put
> in a hidden directory.

Hmm, well, The Gimp expects users to manipulate the contents of .gimp --
that's where users put personal plugin filters or brushes, for example.
The dot isn't to make the directory hidden from the user so much as to
make it non-intrusive. 

Personally, I would be just as happy with "$HOME/lib/squeak". The
alternative "$HOME/squeak" adds clutter to the ls output, and
"$HOME/Squeak" is just to horrible to discuss. (I never use trn to read
news, because no matter what I do to it, it will always create $HOME/News
for me.) 

As for the image files being large, well that's true, but also just a
strawman objection. The size is probably already a problem for people, or
not going to be a problem ever... Admins seem to fall into two classes:
those always strapped for disk space, and those who always seem to have
enough. If the user is knowlegeable enough about the image/change files to
want to ftp them around, I imagine she will be able to find $HOME/.squeak. 
:^)  

Anyway, despite how it may read, I don't have a big emotional commitment
to $HOME/.squeak. It just seemed like the reasonable suggestion and I
hadn't seen anyone else mention it...

Nick

--
Nick Vargish                  patriot.net/~nav                 nav at patriot.net
Unix Systems Engineer; C, C++, Java, Perl, Tcl, Lisp, Shell; Internet Security
I believe in private and trustable communication; PGP key available on request
                   Louis Freeh, decrypt this: SHPX LBH!