On Tuesday 27 November 2001 19:56, Ted Harding wrote:
Well, if it's natural to think of "A:" as a DOS floppy drive,
There is no such thing as a "DOS floppy drive". This is exactly the kind of misnomer that I think has to be checked. I hear people everywhere refer to harddrives as c:, as if that was the universal identifier. I see no problems with informing people that this is win-terminology.
Also to the point is that "A:" is only three keypresses, and less error-prone than "floppu" (oops).
If six letters are a problem, then you're probably better of with "right-click on floppy icon and choose mount". To each his own. For me personally, I find I make more errors with one or two letter commands, simply because if I type floppu I get an error message, if I type s: (the s is next to the a on my keyboard) I could get god knows what effect. That could be potentially more damaging. Perhaps someone should design a command set where the distance between two commands is guaranteed to be > 1
Even more to the point (for "/C:") is that "mount /C:" is MUCH easier than (on my relevant system) "mount -o... /dev/hdc3 /dos1"; and even easier would be a command "C:" which simply did all that so that I wouldn't even have to type "mpunt" (oops).
If you insist. But I think that would have to be a concious choice on your part. I see no gain from turning linux into a windows lookalike on the command/device level.
Only people with environmental damages from various other OSes could find A: 'intuitive' and they have to be re-educated ASAP.
Well, there are a few of us around (in my case from maybe 15 years ago), more coming over still, and many who are obliged to use both systems competently. Which is why I very seriously object to your final statement (unless you meant it in fun):
Partly. But there are so many people that use concepts like "a:" or "c:" that I think it's valid to inform them that this is not universal usage.
"re-education" sounds more like "brain-washing" -- however,
No, I'd say the brainwashing bit is performed elsewhere. Why else would you be som adamant in holding on to terminology from other systems?
I can accept "further education": you keep the skills and competences you have, but you also acquire new ones, and you apply both in the correct contexts, ac cording as you find yourself in them.
Sure, I can agree to that. A: in dos/windows, /dev/fd0 (or /mnt/floppy) in linux.
Which is why, for me, "mount /C:" is useful (and, indeed, why "C:" would be even better) when I want to mount a DOS partition. But if it's not for you, or you don't have call for it, then by all means don't bother. Aliases like this are a personal matter. If they're useful and meaningful, help efficient work, and don't break anything else, then they're fine and it doesn't matter what you call them.
But the SuSE response from "A:" or "C:" reads like "re-education" by mockery. Not nice and not necessary.
I see nothing mocking in that. It is a simple, polite piece of information. And I agree with Jon Clausen, incidentally, that aliases that attempt to replace commands transparently can be confusing, and in some cases even damaging.