> Okay. I don't want to speak for anybody without approval; is there > rough agreement about everything? I'll apply Thomas Bushnell's and > your corrections sometime in the next day, and post the result to this > list then.
just to voice my opinion, so that it can't be said I didn't raise objections when the time was right for them. :) my main objection is the naming of /com. it seems very counter-intutive; since my experience is that 'com' means 'command'. I would prefer a name like /share or /shared; but in the current scheme that seems to be already taken. (as someone said, this is for _variable_ stuff _shared_ between computers... which seems like an awfully good prototype for a naming scheme). if it were lengthened to /common or /cluster or the like; this would be much easier for new (and old) users to understand, I think (and wouldn't take any more typing, since we're likely to have tab-completion most of the time). I don't mean to flame or disparage anyone's ideas by stating this... obviously other people have been at this stuff longer than I have, and probably have a pretty decent idea of what they're doing. I'm just trying to provide a reasoned dissent. :) Carl Soderstrom. -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
