This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area
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.
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?
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com