Linux-Advocacy Digest #7, Volume #27 Sat, 10 Jun 00 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Dealing with filesystem volumes (Lawrence DčOliveiro)
Re: CA24074E Visio for Linux (Christopher Browne)
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence (Cihl)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Cihl)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (abraxas)
Re: Please Help on my Final Year Project (Cihl)
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence (abraxas)
Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box (Secretly Cruel)
Re: Linux & Winmodem (Secretly Cruel)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (G. Wayne Hines)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (tinman)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Sam Morris")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (James Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 12:08:46 GMT
Hi,
I don't claim to be a pro or any kind of guru, but I'll say my piece
and be glad to hear opinions on it.
Being a programmer and longtime frustrated user of Windows, I not too
long ago decided to venture out into that brave new world of Linux. I
set up a linux web server and installed linux on my personal
workstation too-- no more windows in my world.
Installation was a breeze, my hardware worked out alright. I had to
pay for Open Sound System to get my sound card working correctly (due
to my inexperience, I'm sure) but it was well worth it to me.
However:
1.) Multimedia just didn't perform for me on Linux as it does on
windows. By this I mean playback of MPEG compressed video and
framerates in Quake.
2.) My printer doesn't work! I have a NEC SuperScript 870 (yes, one of
those not-quite-postscript lasers) but I love it, and can't afford a
true PS printer..
3.) Drivers for tv tuner card, and mp3 player flash media drive were
either very difficult to install, faulty, or non-existant.
Now I write from windows 2k. But my webserver is still running Linux.
Why?
I love the idea and spirit behind linux, and it is making a top notch
server os for me right now! The reliability amazes me, and the wasted
resources of running a gui on a server just makes me cringe to think
about it now.. :c) I will twist and cavort and work with the machine
to be able to walk away with a cheap, stable, and elegant solution.
But when I sit down to my everyday system, I want the ol' comforts..
easy configuration, ready multimedia, and device support.
Understand me--I DON'T want windows! But I DO want to be able to admit
to myself that Linux isn't ready for my everyday workstation needs.
And if it isn't ready for me, the well-informed, experimental consumer,
I don't think it's ready for the average consumer.
I know many of these problems can be attributed to problems arising
from issues such as lackluster driver support from device companies,
time and $$ it takes to make these things possible. I know Linux has a
zealous (but not over-zealous.. :c) and talented following of
programmers and advocates.
It just seems like some linux advocates like to sell the idea that the
OS is perfect for everyone... But I think the OS is perfect for a
great many things, but maybe it doesn't NEED to be perfect for
everyone...
I dunno.. Go ahead and hammer me if you think I'm crazy, but at least
tell me why.
James Turner
P.S. -- I tried BeOS recently and it impressed the hell out of me as a
consumer desktop... If it had more apps and was friendly with those
damn .docs all my compadres use, I'd probaby go for it. I understand
Be is shifting emphasis toward Internet Appliances though, and away
from BeOS. What a shame!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Lawrence DčOliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:58:55 +1200
Which is the best system for dealing with filesystem volumes?
a) Drive letters (all versions of Windows OT and NT, including Windows
2000).
Pros: You got to be kidding.
Cons: They reaassign themselves at the slightest excuse; add a new
drive, and all bets are off as to which of your existing drive letter
assignments will stay the same.
Verdict: Stupid 1970s way of doing things that should be ashamed to be
still showing itself in the 21st century.
b) Mount points (all UNIXes and Linsux).
Pros: Pretends to make all your volumes look like a single filesystem.
Cons: Only *pretends* to make all your volumes look like a single
filesystem (all kinds of within-file-system-only things don't work, like
hard links). Notoriously error-prone: Copy files to a mount point
directory when the volume isn't actually mounted, then mount it,
and--where did those files go? Not only are they on the wrong volume,
but you can't even access them until you dismount the second volume
again!
Verdict: Incompletely thought-out idea. How come the Linux folks are so
focused on being so faithful to UNIX, when they could be *fixing* some
of those long-standing, well-known UNIX problems?
c) Per-volume filespecs (MacOS, though I think it was originally
invented on the original UCSD p-system).
Pros: System-independent file specifications. A reference to a file on a
removable/hot-pluggable volume doesn't depend on the location of its
"mount point", drive ordering or any other system-specific
configuration: The same reference will work on any other machine
mounting the same volume. The reference can also be used to
automatically request the mounting of the correct volume on demand.
Cons: Can't think of any.
Verdict: MacOS-style file specifications definitely seem to be the way
to go in the next computing millennium. Why are other systems still
using such primitive ways of doing things?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: CA24074E Visio for Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:10:57 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would say:
>
> Embrace the new Standard in Computer Aided design - Linux CAD !
>
> Linux CAD is an original independently designed program runs on new
>
>advanced Linux Operating system.
>
> Complex design and graphics are created with ease and elegance.
>
> Linux CAD erases difficulties of Microsoft Visio and goes head to
>
>head with AutoCAD.
>
> Our improved introductory packageis only $99.00 and we provide
>
>and custom design symbol libraries appropriate for your projects.
>
>
>
> www. l i n u x c a d .com
> www. s o f t w a r e f o r g e .com
Cool.
They're back to spam the newsgroups.
Same high quality writing. Same policy of using relatively
anonymous sources to post the articles. Same policy of comparing
themselves to AutoCAD, although this time they also try to compare
themselves with Visio. _My_ big problem with Visio is that it's
fairly expensive under the MSFT hegemony. Unfortunately, LinuxCAD's
"improved introductory package" is not particularly cheaper than
Visio...
It's most entertaining that the URL's <http://www.linuxcad.com/> and
<http://www.softwareforge.com/> are being fiddled with so that they
don't _exactly_ look like URLs... I can't quite fathom why...
At any rate, those that would consider their software should
doubtless take a look at what reviews are available...
<a href="http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue30/wuest.html">LinuxCAD
Impressions</a>
<a href="http://www.zip.com.au/~erikd/lcad.html">Why I don't like
LinuxCAD</a>
<a href="http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue41/weaver.html">LinuxCAD LG
#41 - Official Reaction to "LinuxCAD Impressions"</a>
The choice is yours...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #75. "I will instruct my Legions of Terror
to attack the hero en masse, instead of standing around waiting while
members break off and attack one or two at a time."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:00:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> As most computer professionals know, "open source" software has a
> reputation for being extremely unreliable, buggy, and prone to constant
> failure. Of course, since the source code is available, one need only
> look at it to see how devastatingly bad it is. Sourceforge has a
> service where programmers are allowed to share their work with others.
> One such contribution is the following, which allows an fgets-like
> function to read from a file descriptor:
>
> #define BUFLEN 4096
>
> void dprintf(int fd, char *format, ...)
> {
> va_list arglist;
> char buffer[BUFLEN];
>
> va_start(arglist, format);
> vsnprintf(buffer, BUFLEN, format, arglist);
> va_end(arglist);
>
> write(fd, buffer, strlen(buffer));
> }
>
> Copyright 2000 by "Zaf". Licensed under GPL.
>
> The author does not document that the function has a 4K limit. When
> innocent programmers use it, they will be baffled why it always cuts
> off after 4K. But that's not the point: it is _trivial_ for a competent
> programmer to extend this to work with strings of arbitrary length. Any
> programmer who has even the slightest experience at all, would be able
> to achieve this with ease. Of course, one wonders what insight this
> function gives at all - it is basically straight off the the stdarg man
> page, which any programmer who has even glanced at any code at all, is
> already familiar with.
>
> Next, we have the case of the programmer who wanted to reverse every
> line in a file:
>
> for ( ; position > -1 ; position--) {
>
> /* seek to the proper position and read in a character */
> if(fseek(stream, position, SEEK_SET)) {
> printf("Failed to fseek to the current file position.\n");
> exit (1);
> }
>
> if((value=fgetc(stream))==EOF) {
> printf("Failed to read a character from the current file
> position.\n");
> exit (1);
> }
>
> /* if the character is a newline then print the accumulated
> stack*/
> if(value=='\n'){
> while (stack = pop(stack, &x)){
> printf("%c", x);
> }
> stack = push(stack, '\n');
> }
>
> /* push the character onto the stack */
> stack = push(stack, value);
>
> }
>
> /* print the first line to finish up */
> while (stack = pop(stack, &x)){
> printf("%c", x);
> }
>
> Copyright 2000 by "buckrogers". Licensed by GPL.
>
> This programmer does an fseek (!), a malloc, an fgetc, a push (which
> allocates no fewer than 8 bytes per input byte), a pop, and a printf
> for each _character_ in the stream! Most professional programmers would
> cringe of the idea of calling six expensive functions for a large
> input, especially when the concept is so simple. Indeed, one wonders
> why he didn't just mmap the file, and go through it backwards, which
> would not only be about a hundred times faster in run time, but simpler
> to test and code.
>
> These, of course, are just code snippets. But one really has to wonder -
> if the Linux community cannot get trivial functions to work properly,
> reliably, and efficiently, how can we possibly expect them to get the
> complex things right? Indeed, Mozilla, which is very possibly the
> slowest computer program ever created, was probably written by a whole
> army of open source zealots who would use 6 expensive function calls
> per character in a large input stream to reverse a file. Linux crashes
> so much because code like the first quoted function is all over the
> kernel. The rest of the apps are prone to constant failure because of
> their own miscellaneous failings. Obviously, as these examples show,
> the community is not to be trusted to produce the best software.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
I take it you wrote this yourself, and nobody in the open-source
community liked it? :-)
Sorry to burst your closed-source bubble, but closed-source software
is no better in this matter, and possibly much worse too, because
nobody else but the company who made the program ever looks at them!
Just curious, where did you get these examples, exactly?
I'm sure if anyone else saw this piece of code, the (poor) guy who
made this would probably be flamed and laughed at and pestered right
out of SourceForge!
One of the biggest strengths of open-source is that this kind of code
gets noticed and eradicated almost immediately.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:19:17 GMT
"Lawrence D=B9Oliveiro" wrote:
> =
> Which is the best system for dealing with filesystem volumes?
> =
> a) Drive letters (all versions of Windows OT and NT, including Windows
> 2000).
> Pros: You got to be kidding.
If you can't type, it's fastest. :-)
> Cons: They reaassign themselves at the slightest excuse; add a new
> drive, and all bets are off as to which of your existing drive letter
> assignments will stay the same.
> Verdict: Stupid 1970s way of doing things that should be ashamed to be
> still showing itself in the 21st century.
The same goes for all the other filesystems in use today.
> b) Mount points (all UNIXes and Linsux).
> Pros: Pretends to make all your volumes look like a single filesystem.
Very flexible, if you ask me.
> Cons: Only *pretends* to make all your volumes look like a single
> filesystem (all kinds of within-file-system-only things don't work, lik=
e
> hard links). Notoriously error-prone: Copy files to a mount point
> directory when the volume isn't actually mounted, then mount it,
> and--where did those files go? Not only are they on the wrong volume,
> but you can't even access them until you dismount the second volume
> again!
A certain work immediately comes to mind... STUPID!!!
> Verdict: Incompletely thought-out idea. How come the Linux folks are so=
> focused on being so faithful to UNIX, when they could be *fixing* some
> of those long-standing, well-known UNIX problems?
Why fix it if you can work around it? :-)
=
> c) Per-volume filespecs (MacOS, though I think it was originally
> invented on the original UCSD p-system).
> Pros: System-independent file specifications. A reference to a file on =
a
> removable/hot-pluggable volume doesn't depend on the location of its
> "mount point", drive ordering or any other system-specific
> configuration: The same reference will work on any other machine
> mounting the same volume. The reference can also be used to
> automatically request the mounting of the correct volume on demand.
I had to read this several times to understand. Doesn't sound that
different from Unix, to me.
> Cons: Can't think of any.
Try harder, this time without any bias.
=
> Verdict: MacOS-style file specifications definitely seem to be the way
> to go in the next computing millennium. Why are other systems still
> using such primitive ways of doing things?
<SARCASTIC THINKING>
Gee, i wonder which OS-system this guy likes to use most? This guy
crossposts a lot, doesn't he? Oh, well...
</SARCASTIC THINKING>
Linux is aimed at POSIX-compliance and the old standard filesystem. We
certainly wouldn't like it if critical utilities like Sendmail,
XFree86, and such suddenly would stop working.
And another thing, for the umpteenth time:
I AM NOT GOING TO BUY A NEW COMPUTER, AND CERTAINLY NOT A FSCKING
MAC!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: 10 Jun 2000 14:21:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > abraxas wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > On 06/09/2000 at 08:59 PM,
>> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) said:
>> >>
>> >> >> I dont run windows by the way, or OS2. In case you thought you were
>> >> >> getting my goat or something. :)
>> >>
>> >> > Then there are only 2 possibilities. You are running a MAC which is
>> >> > nothing more than a glorified Playstation or you are running some form of
>> >> > unix which makes your machine virtually useless for 99.98% of business
>> >> > customers.
>> >>
>> >> I could be running BeOS, or RISCOS, or Workbench, etc. on a variety of
>> >> systems, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Tell me once again how useful OS/2 is for business customers.
>>
>> > Been to any banks lately?
>>
>> You may have had a point about 3 years ago. :)
> Surely you've been to a bank since then.
Ive done contract work in banks since then, yes. And as I said, you may
have had a point three years ago....
Or with banks that havent upgraded anything in three years. I hear theres
alot of those left. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Please Help on my Final Year Project
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:22:45 GMT
Alan Po wrote:
>
> Dear All
>
> I am a University Student in Hong Kong. I have choosen to develop an
> Embedded Linux Environment for Industrial as my Final Year Project. My
:-O
All this alone in one year?!
> Lecturer suggest me that my first step is to use a linux to control a Web
> Camera first. However, in Hong Kong, almost all Web Camera only support USB
> (Windows 98 or iMac). In my plan, I also find that if the USB Hardware
> Interface may be more useful and meaningful because USB is PnP and it is
> easy to find in the market (also the industrial). However, as I know, Linux
> does not support USB.
It does now, try the 2.4.0 test-kernel, the USB-implementation should
be stable by now.
Some info at http://www.linux-usb.org.
> Can anyone tell any USB development plan on Linux? Where can I get more
> solutions or hints on USB for Linux? Thanks and welcome for any help and
> suggestion on my project. Thanks a lot.
Oops, said it three lines too soon. :-)
> Alan Po
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: 10 Jun 2000 14:24:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As most computer professionals know, "open source" software has a
> reputation for being extremely unreliable, buggy, and prone to constant
> failure.
(Read: You cannot buy a service contract which enables your MCSEs to
really have to know nothing more than how to load a CDrom into a
windows machine and hit 'next' a few times in instalshield...)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 10:26:05 -0400
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 12:08:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>2.) My printer doesn't work! I have a NEC SuperScript 870 (yes, one of
>those not-quite-postscript lasers) but I love it, and can't afford a
>true PS printer..
I dunno... my printer is an el cheapo Canon BJC-4400 and it prints
perfectly. IIRC, I paid less than $100 for the thing.
>But when I sit down to my everyday system, I want the ol' comforts..
>easy configuration, ready multimedia, and device support.
>
>Understand me--I DON'T want windows! But I DO want to be able to admit
>to myself that Linux isn't ready for my everyday workstation needs.
>And if it isn't ready for me, the well-informed, experimental consumer,
>I don't think it's ready for the average consumer.
>
>I know many of these problems can be attributed to problems arising
>from issues such as lackluster driver support from device companies,
>time and $$ it takes to make these things possible. I know Linux has a
>zealous (but not over-zealous.. :c) and talented following of
>programmers and advocates.
>
>It just seems like some linux advocates like to sell the idea that the
>OS is perfect for everyone... But I think the OS is perfect for a
>great many things, but maybe it doesn't NEED to be perfect for
>everyone...
>
>I dunno.. Go ahead and hammer me if you think I'm crazy, but at least
>tell me why.
You're exactly right. For the average user, Linux is not ready for
prime time just yet. I'm pretty new at all this myself, having bought
Redhat 5.2 several years ago. It was cryptic and confusing, and I gave
up on it after a while. Then six months ago I bought Caldera 2.3 and
was blown away by the ease of installation. Now I run Redhat 6.2 and
Windows no longer lives on my machine. Linux is getting much, much
better extremely quickly. Don't give up yet, just check back in
another year or so. :-)
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 10:30:20 -0400
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:20:51 -0600, Jody Lowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
l boot and download with windows if that's
>the only option. I do, however, suggest that you pick up a real modem.
> I haven't used my USR winmodem since I installed Linux. You wouldn't believe
>how much that particular modem slows down the whole system. It's aweful. I
>have a PII 350 that used to get bogged down in windows if I had a few IE
>windows open. I originally thought it might just be windows but I had no such
>problems, in windows, when I hooked up my external modem. It really is a bad
>modem to buy.
> BTW, I picked up my external modem for around 20 bucks on eBay. It kicks ass
>too. :)
eBay rocks. I didn't get my ext. modem quite as cheaply as you did,
but it cost half of retail and was still in the unopened box. I could
not believe the difference in speed when running Windoze.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (G. Wayne Hines)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:41:20 GMT
In an earlier episode, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 06/10/2000 at 11:30 AM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (G. Wayne Hines) said:
>
> > In an earlier episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED]@lava.net wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Saskatoon has an international airport now! Wow!
>
> > Hey, so does Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.
>
> IIRC, there is also one on Cape Breton Island as well.
There is an airport at Sydney that has commercial flights. I'm
not sure that it actually has "international" status. Gander,
and possibly St. John's, Newfoundland has such status.
The Yarmouth airport used to have a couple of daily flights
to/from Boston, and there are some freight runs in and out of
there. There used to be a customs office right at the airport.
I'm not sure if they are still there, or if they just show up
before a flight.
gwh
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] G. Wayne Hines #
# Team OS/2 Kentville, NS, Canada #
# I don't wanna work. I just want to ride on the train all day #
# http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/w.d.hines/express.html #
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 10:48:20 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tinman wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > I can see Bill Gates mounting his horse right now!
> >
> > EEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWW! Really, is it absolutely necessary to bring in his sex
> > life to this discussion? I was just about to eat dinner.....
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who is going through all of this because of
> his sex life. I warned you about going down that path, tinman.
Oh, no, you're not baiting me into this one, I'm not falling into another
tholenesque spiral this week, I've got gardening to do....
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:56:17 +0100
>> Cons: They reaassign themselves at the slightest excuse; add a new
>> drive, and all bets are off as to which of your existing drive letter
>> assignments will stay the same.
> Verdict: Stupid 1970s way of doing things that should be ashamed to be
> still showing itself in the 21st century.
>
>The same goes for all the other filesystems in use today.
Per-volume systems do no such thing. If I add another disk to my Mac, each
formatted partition appears on the desktop and doesn't screw up everything
else that came before.
Example: Installing a new Hard Disk.
On my Mac: Connect the cables up inside and turn it on (both IDE/SCSI).
Initialise the disk when asked to do so by the MacOS. Do whatever I want
with the new disk.
On my PC: Look in manual to discover jumper settings for Master/Slave (IDE
only; I haven't tried to add a SCSI card to my PC). Connect up cables. Boot
up. Discover that my CD is now E:, not D: and every damn thing that expects
it's files to be on a CD now needs to be told differently.
God knows how Windows copes with multiple partitions on a removeable drive;
if I repartition my main prive in half, then I now have C: and D:, E: and
F:. But what happens if I insert a CD with two partitions? Does F: magically
split into F: and G:?
--
Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...7/6/00: 3rd installation of Windows since March took 6h30m, and that's
without a working modem...
...you can have my Mac when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers...
------------------------------
From: James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 10 Jun 2000 15:03:07 GMT
In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Lawrence DčOliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> b) Mount points (all UNIXes and Linsux).
> Pros: Pretends to make all your volumes look like a single filesystem.
> Cons: Only *pretends* to make all your volumes look like a single
> filesystem (all kinds of within-file-system-only things don't work, like
> hard links). Notoriously error-prone: Copy files to a mount point
> directory when the volume isn't actually mounted, then mount it,
> and--where did those files go? Not only are they on the wrong volume,
> but you can't even access them until you dismount the second volume
> again!
> Verdict: Incompletely thought-out idea. How come the Linux folks are so
> focused on being so faithful to UNIX, when they could be *fixing* some
> of those long-standing, well-known UNIX problems?
Haven't you heard of automount and autofs?
It automatically mounts it when accessed
and unmount it when not in used for some time.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
