| |||||||||||||
The most important question not askedThe most important question not askedPosted Mar 2, 2012 16:08 UTC (Fri) by dmm (subscriber, #9815)In reply to: The most important question not asked by bojan Parent article: Various notes on /usr unification
While we're at it, fstab is so 70s, how about /etc/filesystems.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||