On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Nate Carlson wrote: > Also, what's the point of c:, d:, e:, f:, etc? It makes so much more sense > to have stuff mounted in one large namespace instead of splitting it up > like that. Not necessarily. For doing logical volumes, it's nice to have a handle on the physical location. That's the way VMS (sorry to mention it 3 times in one day) handles things, but you can create a logical name and say that your directory, [foo.dir] is found on c:, d:, g:, and h:. Called bound volumes, and I think it's the wheel that the LVM project(s) are reinventing. One nice side effect is that there's no such thing as a partition, and if a disk gets full, you simply add another one to the system and tell it which directory has more space now. :) > I'll take the UNIX-style file naming system any day.. it's logical. No pun intended? But that's just it -- it is *only* logical. What's nice is to have physical/logical control at run-time, and then be able to make pretty symlinks so the user calls it /mydir. > Maybe a bit of a learning curve, but at least things generally follow > some order, and you can tell why things go where they do. Until they don't. :) Actually, though, that's not really a characteristic of the system but a reflection on how tidy the admins are. Like the desk/file cabinet balance between two different offices. Any file system is OK -- as long as you *USE* it! -- "To misattribute a quote is unforgivable." --Anonymous