This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area


On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Apr  3 17:46, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >> Why do we need a fstab.$SID and linux doesn't need this?
> >
> > Well, I like to create user mounts for each user (Guest,
> > Administrator, me) like this:
> >
> > mount -f -u -b "C:/Documents and Settings/<user>/My Documents" "/mydocs"
> > mount -f -u -b "C:/Documents and Settings/<user>/Desktop" "/desktop"
> >
> > mainly for convenience, but also because spaces and the command line
> > don't mix well. Linux doesn't have to deal with asinine decisions made
> > in Redmond, WA...from a hidden microphone in 1995: "LOOK! We can
> > support spaces in filenames as well as filenames longer than 8.3, so
> > let's use them EVERYWHERE! Spaces for EVERYBODY! Really long and hard
> > to type system paths, like 'Documents and Settings'! Whoo-pee!! Steve
> > Jobs has got nuthin' on us!"
> >
> > I realize that on (clean-install, non-upgrade) Vista, this is less of
> > an issue, because the "new" paths are
> >
> > mount -f -u -b "C:/Users/<user>/Documents" "/mydocs"
> > mount -f -u -b "C:/Users/<user>/Desktop" "/desktop"
> >
> > but XP and 2k aren't going anywhere for a long long time, if even one of
> > the horror stories I've read about Vista are true...
>
> I understand that.  Well, we shouldn't make this overly public, but
> keeping the fstab.$SID handling in doesn't hurt the least bit.
>
> Btw., since setup.exe (or the subsequent script) can and will always create
> an /etc/fstab file, doesn't that mean we can get rid of the choices
> "all users" and "just me"?  The only difference between these two choices
> is in which registry area the mount points go.  So there's no reason to
> stick to that choice.

Yes, that makes sense.

> And while we're at it, I don't see any need to stick to the UNIX/DOS
> choice either.  We should always install binary mount points.  If the
> user needs text mounts, there's an editor and a fstab file, right?

Ah, but which mode will you edit it in? :-)
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.  That is the whole
Torah; the rest is commentary.  Go and study it." -- Rabbi Hillel


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]