On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 07:23:29PM +0200, Norbert Nemec wrote: > > > i have installed with the big tarball and cannot found the umount command > > This would appear to be a good reason *not* to include a "mount" > > command---it encourages people not to learn about translators (and if they > > don't know about translators, they might as well be using a monolithic > > kernel). > Why would you want to force people into their luck? IMO, it would be most > important to make it as easy as possible to switch to hurd. Once you have > the people using it, those that are interested will find out about all the > goodies.
Originally I was going to answer this with "SO?? You want us to have DIR aliased to ls -l by default?", but I realised that a) it already is, and b) I wasn't going to win any favours with that argument. :-) The main reason I'm not entirely happy about having "mount" is that the effects of doing a settrans under Hurd are very different from the effects of doing a mount under a Unix clone; in a way, a settrans is like loading a kernel driver, doing a mount and making a symlink all in one. The point is not that we should not have a "mount", but that the documentation should talk about "settrans" and clearly explain that "mount" is just a wrapper around settrans. > Perhaps there could be a separate package that offers a whole bunch > of scripts for that purpose. I guess mount/umount is not the only point > where the fundamental differences can be hidden by a simple script. Such as other things done with settrans, like network configuration (IIRC; I don't have Hurd installed right now). On a completely unrelated matter, would it be possible to produce a "usermode GNU Mach" like there's a usermode Linux kernel? -- Adam Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
