On 2007-01-18, Yrrah <Yrrah.YrrahYrrah.Yrrah********.com> wrote:
> Ivan Tisljar <_system_hlloyge******.co.uk>:
>
>> There is a problem here, and it is not Linux. It's you and your
>> unwillingness to learn something new and totally different. For people
>> like you, there is Microsoft.
>
> That's the typical reply of a sectarian who refuses to acknowledge
> there are weaknesses in his belief.

There's no weakness. The layout system in unix-type OSes is there to
reduce the chaos found on other systems.

Also, it is useful for things like mounting file systems over network or
from other drives/partitions.

Single tree hierarchy to rule them all :)

> Contrary to what some sectarian weirdos think I am an experienced PC
> user,

'nuff said. The lamest computer with cheapest parts running Dirty
Operating System (IIRC, the original name, but it also had a "Quick and"
prefix).

Could it be a coincidence that the most advanced computers on the face
of the planet ran (and still do) some sort of a unix-type operating system
while that puny IBM PC-compatible ran DOS/Windows?

I don't think so.

Let's face it, Windows still use the letter-mark drive designations - a
relic from over 30 years ago that never worked ok. Ever wondered if the
design is ok?
--
Najveca moc u fizici je moci staviti minus tamo gdje ti treba.