28 Jan
2004
28 Jan
'04
8:46 a.m.
Yes, drive letters have advantage of simplicity (well, to me :) )
But user must define it by himself (in config file, registry, or somehow
else, like C:=/dev/hda1 :) ).
Example of windows stupidity:
My friend has a primary master disk with two partitions, which shows
as C: and D:.
He has windows at C: and some programs at D:.
But when I bring my one-partition-disk to him, and connect it as
secondary slave, its partions becomes D:, and my friend's old D: becomes E:
!
What did Bill thought, while doing such idiotic drive letter
asignment system?
> I read a couple of opinions which disliked drive
letters.
> When time goes by, we shuld think of a nice alternative
L> Hmm I really don't understand people concerned with drive letters. Actually,
L> one of the main reasons a lot of people dislike Linux and Unix is the lack
L> of drive letters and their crappy, monolithic file system. So, long life to
L> drive letters!
L> The one and only thing to improve is how the OS assigns the letters to the
L> partitions (the DOS/Win9x way was quite horrible, in Win2k/XP somehow
L> better).
L> But more important yet, is to let the USER to decide the drive and the name
L> of ALL the root folders created during Setup: not only C:\Reactos, but also
L> "Program Files" and "Documents and Settings".
L> Lorenzo
L> _______________________________________________
L> ros-general mailing list
L> ros-general(a)reactos.com
L> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general