* On 2021 10 Mar 12:02 -0600, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > > I think all these shortened names derive from a time when computing > > resources were limited. If you're using an 80x25 terminal over at 50 > > bits per second to a time-shared mainframe, it's more comfortable to > > type "/usr" than it is to type "/Programs". Easier to type "cp" than to > > type "copy", and so on. It's all fairly arbitrary. Why C:\? Why not > > System:\? Convention and history and inertia. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usr > > > > > > - t > > But why do we have to use a system designed for such old computers > when the now old computers are much more capable than that. > I think it needs a redesign. > > By the way, C:\ looks fine since it is just a letter succession mechanism > for labeling storage devices: C, D, E... it is like: usb0, usb1, usb2... It is more than looks. In Unix filesystems disks/volumes/partitions are "mounted" into the main file system at some arbitrary "mount point" and thus the filesystem encompasses all mounted devices. With DOS, all lettered disks are independent, though resources can be referenced across disks, it's not seamless. Also, what happens when you get to disk Z? Why should we use filesystem specifications that are constrained by the limitations of CP/M running on 8 bit processors? - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Web: https://www.n0nb.us Projects: https://github.com/N0NB GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature