Accessing native NT namespace as filesystem

Christopher Faylor cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com
Fri Sep 3 15:03:00 GMT 2010


On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:58:00AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Sep  2 17:52, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 10:50:48PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >On 2 September 2010 22:32, Larry Hall wrote:
>> >> On 9/2/2010 5:26 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Eric Blake wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On the other hand, /nt is less likely to conflict with user expectations
>> >>>> than /sys or /devices (since those have other meanings on other systems,
>> >>>> but
>> >>>> /nt is new).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If it were up to me, right now I'm liking the name /proc/nt/.
>> >>>
>> >>> Me too. Yay, bikeshedding. :)
>> >>
>> >> Other than its brevity, I don't see an advantage of "nt" over "windows" or
>> >> something more obvious/descriptive that we're dealing with Windows-specific
>> >> stuff here. ??But perhaps I'm the only one who thinks the "NT" nomenclature
>> >> for the Windows architecture is fading fast.
>> >
>> >/proc/nt seems apt because NT namespace is the official name for the
>> >thingy under consideration:
>> >http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365247.aspx#nt_namespaces
>> >
>> >Also, there are Windowses without NT, and theoretically at least there
>> >could be NTs without Windows.
>> 
>> Hello all of you AOL users!
>> 
>> I sorta like /proc/nt too.
>
>Oooohkeeey.  I still like /proc/sys more, though.  It just *sounds*
>better, imho.  Could you all live with that, too?

No!  Absolutely not!  Red is a much better color for a bikeshed!

cgf
(/proc/sys is fine)



More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list