Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.
> 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?
Yes I saw that too. But I prefer not to further continue this debate to
/dev or /mount.
I like to know at hand what file is on which disk. Aside from that,
if I made Windows, I would make it go to AA after Z, looks like a little
solution. Even though, it would not be bad to call them USB0: or HDD0:,
just a bit more complex.
> Why should we use filesystem specifications that are constrained by the
> limitations of CP/M running on 8 bit processors?
I never tried to say that we should use FAT or NTFS. I was just talking
about names.
Reply to: