RE: disk structure (was Re: Determining the location of a Cygwininstallation)

["Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail)" <garbage_collector at telia dot com>]

> From: cygwin-owner at cygwin dot com [mailto:cygwin-owner at cygwin dot com]On Behalf
> Of Rolf Campbell

--8<--
> >  I _hate_ having C:\foo\ c:\bar\ c:\this\ c:\that\ directories. They DO
> > belong in C:\Program\ (or whatever) _AND NOT IN THE ROOT_ >:-I
> >
> >  Any files belonging to a software package should be kept in a
> storage that
> > identifies them as beeing part of that package. IMO a well structured
> > operating system allows this (e.g. AmigaOS, Unix/Linux)

--8<--
> While I agree that not all programs should have a root dir, what's in
> yours?  "Program", "Documents and Settings", "WINNT"?  All that means is
> that instead of having 35 root dirs, you have 3 root dirs and 33 dirs in
> "Program".  That is no better (unless you are running FAT16).

 Well, that might not be the best way to have it - but I like it a lot more
than having the root dirs.

> And Linux doesn't give you anything better, they just call "Program
> Files" "/bin".

 I've gotten the impression that this can be selected, at least with
rpm/dpkg. Is that wrong?

> I like to have (and used to have) a more functionally structured disk:
> in "C:\", I had: "Programming", "Courses", "Internet",
> "AudioVideo", etc...

 Ok. I'm an Amiga "old timer" and know very much about the OS. On the Amiga
one can put executables, shared (runtime) libraries, fonts and such
anywhere - then give the OS pointers (e.g. "assign add fonts: <dir>").
 Having done so, all OS calls work as they should.

/Hannu E K Nevalainen, Mariefred, Sweden

--END OF MESSAGE--


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/