|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] directory conventions
|
I'll turn this back around to Unix in a second.
I just meant that, overall, M$'s directory structure is, was, or could
have been simpler, depending on the user. Back in the day you could
have had a bunch of junk in C:>, C:\DOS>, maybe C:\PROGNAME, and other
M$ users wouldn't say anything, or just didn't know any better. At
least people were able to navigate it. But, then, users should only be
concerned about their home directories. ~username That's easy to find
no matter where it is. And I guess Unix users are free to dump
everything in ~username if they choose.
Chris Hedemark wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 12:38 AM, Paul wrote:
I hate to say it, but all this Unix weirdness made Micro$oft what it
is today. (It might be the lack of sleep talking.)
Microsoft is just as fragmented between its own products.
For example, changing your network configuration between Windows 95,
ME, NT, and 2000.
Some versions of Windows (DOS based) use command.com as the shell, and
others use cmd.exe.
Then there is the C:\WINNT vs. C:\WINDOWS issue.
I could keep going. But I think Microsoft is more inconsistent
between their own product releases than most popular Linux distros are
from each other.
Chris Hedemark .. Prospect Park, PA .. http://yonderway.com
Homeland Security begins at home; support your Second Amendment.
_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|