| |||||||||||||
The most important question not askedThe most important question not askedPosted Feb 28, 2012 23:43 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)Parent article: Various notes on /usr unification
Which is: is /user going to be a symlink to /usr or the other way around?
Oh, and when is umount finally going to get an 'n'?
;-)
(Log in to post comments)
The most important question not asked Posted Feb 29, 2012 5:32 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
Or creat that final 'e'.
The most important question not asked Posted Feb 29, 2012 13:47 UTC (Wed) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link] AIX has had an unmount command (hardlinked to umount and doing the same thing) for over twenty years, judging by this AIX 1.3 manpage.When is Linux going to get this sort of enterprise-level functionality out-of-the-box? (Three buzz-phrases in one sentence -- my fingers feel dirty.)
The most important question not asked Posted Mar 2, 2012 16:08 UTC (Fri) by dmm (subscriber, #9815) [Link]
While we're at it, fstab is so 70s, how about /etc/filesystems.
The most important question not asked Posted Mar 2, 2012 22:52 UTC (Fri) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] That's already spoken for.
The most important question not asked Posted Mar 8, 2012 14:05 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>While we're at it, fstab is so 70s, how about /etc/filesystems.
ITYM '/Et Cetera/My Filesystem Table'
(So apparently one of the reasons for 'c:\Program Files', when other options like 'c:\Programs' seem more sensible is that it was a way to flush out programs which didn't handle spaces in file paths.)
The most important question not asked Posted Mar 8, 2012 14:46 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] And, of course “c:\Windows” is not “c:\Windows System” because Windows itself does not like spaces (or long file names). Typical for Microsoft: everyone else should fix their programs when they port to new version of Windows (old programs saw “C:\PROGRA~1” and were happy), but Microsoft don't. P.S. This is not a speculation: Windows9x gave you ability to select name of directory where you can install it. I've installed it in “c:\Program Files\Windows” (to keep it confined to a single subdirectory) and then various Microsoft packages started complaining that they should be moved from “c:\Program Files\Windows” to “c:\PROGRA~1\WINDOWS”… When I've reported it as a bug in DirectX the bug was closed as INVALID with comment that you should not use non-MSDOS names from the main Windows directory.
The most important question not asked Posted Mar 8, 2012 18:45 UTC (Thu) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] Windows 95 is not a fair comparison here, though. It, Windows 98 and Windows ME were all stop-gaps until Windows NT was able to replace them (which it got close to with Windows 2000, and managed with Windows XP), and they did a variety of interesting things related to their ability to use MS-DOS device drivers for low level filesystem access. It's much the same situation as criticising Linux, because when you run certain apps on a FreeBSD system with their Linux compatibility layer they don't work well. Of course, this shows one side of the "gradual change" coin - Windows XP was released in 2001, so it took Microsoft 6 years to shift people in their preferred direction. If you could repeat the experiment with NT-based Windows, that would be interesting; I don't know if any NT Windows could install to a directory other than C:\Windows or C:\WINNT, however.
The most important question not asked Posted Dec 13, 2012 15:18 UTC (Thu) by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359) [Link]
I’ve done C:\WIN for 3.x, 9x and 2000 (NT-based) successfully.
|
|||||||||||||