Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th May 2012 14:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 519594
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Furthermore, I've see how well named volumes worked on the AmigaDOS command line. That made sense.
Since many UNIX and Linux systems support file system labels (in different ways), this functionaliy can be considered a standard functionality. It's a feature commonly used today.
You can "mount /dev/label/data2012 /home/db/thisyear", or have the disks in your NAS labeled A1, A2, B1, B2, and SPARE. You can reflect RAID criteria (part of mirror, part of stripe, spare) as well as functional parts (system disk, data disk, program disk, scratch disk, secret disk). You can even automate mount actions depending on labels.
Your inability, or unwillingness, to explain what we're missing just further underscores this. I'm guessing it would take a major effort to lead us through the convoluted logic to justify a scheme that's so counterintuitive to normal, non-Unix-indoctrinated people.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was here to provide a CIS lecture. How about you make it your responsibility to educate yourself and then we can have an informed debate on both sides?
From the context of your post I'm guessing you're complaining about the directory structure. That wasn't what the original discussion was about. Whether "everything is a directory" with volumes mounted under / makes sense and whether the names and structure of those directories makes sense are two different things.
I'm actually inclined to agree that the current hierarchy and naming scheme in most *nixes are a complete mess.
Furthermore, I've see how well named volumes worked on the AmigaDOS command line. That made sense.
So do I. Volumes on the Amiga were no more intuitive than everything-is-a-directory on UNIX. Why is LIB: or C: any more easy to understand than /usr/lib or /bin?
Edited 2012-05-27 12:44 UTC




Member since:
2012-04-28
I'm with kurkosdr, it's madness. His (and my) "fundamental misunderstanding" is indicative of just how wacky it is. Your inability, or unwillingness, to explain what we're missing just further underscores this. I'm guessing it would take a major effort to lead us through the convoluted logic to justify a scheme that's so counterintuitive to normal, non-Unix-indoctrinated people.
Furthermore, I've see how well named volumes worked on the AmigaDOS command line. That made sense.