On Jo, 11 mar 21, 16:02:55, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > > Thanks for your proposition, I didn't understand the usefulness of a > unified hierarchy > until you put that example. > > Well, you still have to mount it, don't you? We don't have to delete > the mount "feature" > nor the unified hierarchy, instead we could use both approaches. > Think of E: and F: > as sdc1 and sdd1, with direct access to those E: and F:. (Now that I'm > writing this, > I think we could use E1: and F1:, I find it useful too). Then you > could write something like: > > mount E1: /home > mount F1: /home/foo/Videos > > The boot device could always be An: (with "n" being some number), so > the system could automatically do: "mount An: /" at boot. If you > would prefer some > operating system interoperability, we could use Cn: instead of An: > > At the end, you have the safe option to write /something/something_else > on the command line, or F1:/something/something_else at a GUI.
It seems to me you are proposing an additional level of indirection[1], so beware of: "All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection" "... except for the problem of too many levels of indirection" (attributed to various Computer Scientists) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirection Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature