[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is there an alternative filesystem hierarchy that could be adapted to Debian.



On Jo, 11 mar 21, 16:02:55, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your proposition, I didn't understand the usefulness of a
> unified hierarchy
> until you put that example.
> 
> Well, you still have to mount it, don't you?  We don't have to delete
> the mount "feature"
> nor the unified hierarchy, instead we could use both approaches.
> Think of E: and F:
> as sdc1 and sdd1, with direct access to those E: and F:. (Now that I'm
> writing this,
> I think we could use E1: and F1:, I find it useful too).  Then you
> could write something like:
> 
> mount E1: /home
> mount F1: /home/foo/Videos
> 
> The boot device could always be An: (with "n" being some number), so
> the system could automatically do: "mount An: /" at boot.  If you
> would prefer some
> operating system interoperability, we could use Cn: instead of An:
> 
> At the end, you have the safe option to write /something/something_else
> on the command line, or F1:/something/something_else at a GUI.

It seems to me you are proposing an additional level of indirection[1], 
so beware of:

"All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of 
indirection"
"... except for the problem of too many levels of indirection"

(attributed to various Computer Scientists)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirection

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: