Re: Intent To Split: netbase
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hmm. Lets step back here, and take a deep breath. What we need
> to consider is whether the underlying principle is desirable -- does
> it make sense to have two separate path components? The rationale was
> that for the common user, there are programs that are not used very
> often, and may not even work when invoked, and thus tend to only
> confuse the uninitiated, and annoy enerally by messing up command
> comletion.
>
> The question that seems to want to be raised is whether this
> is true? Are people really confused more by having extra commands
> available, or are they confused by _not_ havingcertain commands
> present?
Sounds fine to me.
> The irony is, of course, that the people generally making such
> decisions (like this forum) are rarely a decent sampling of the user
> base, or the hypothetical Joe user.
Maybe we should ask our users then?
> As to mount telling us what is mounted, so does df, and cat
> /etc/mtab. again, not enough to move mount; unless one is being
> contrary.
I dont follow this. 'echo *' can tell me what files are in a directory;
a system without ls in path is still broken. I don't see how mount is
much different. Regular users *often* want to mount/unmount/check mount
status of removable media. And it's in /bin now, so isn't this a red
herring anyway?
--
see shy jo
Reply to: