Bob George wrote:
>If I have documents spread across two separate drives, why shouldn't they
>all be organized under "documents" somewhere? Why should users know -- or
>care -- that there are two metal spinning thingies in the box? What about
>when I get a new drive and consolidate? "ATTENTION: Drive C: and D: are now
>only C:. Aieee!"
The user should be aware on what drive things are. What if the drive gets
bad or is removed? Wouldn't it be good to know what files/directories are
were then?
>"Uhm, your C: drive is my G: drive, right?"
"My G drive is your C, right?" would sound much more logical to me (unless
C: is mapped to the others G: of course).
Actually this is were (standard) Linux hides the information from you and
DOS users often want to know what things are and were they come from. So
will most people, but perhaps not on these things.
>I personally think it marks a real point of progress in one's networking
>career (where applicable) when one can forget drive letters and think first
>of the relationship between devices and systems.
I must agree with you here. Always think of it as some HD in some computer.
But it's vital IMHO to know where this HD is and which one it is.
>Just start at the beginning and work slowly. Linux, Solaris, HP-UX nor
>anything else will look much like DOS.
Or perhaps they all look like UN*X since they are all basicly clones of UN*X.
//Bernie
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
