 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Unix has a concept of "current working directory". Windows has an
identical concept. But did you know that Windows keeps a working
directory FOR EVERY DRIVE?
C:\> CD Foo
C:\Foo> D:
D:\> CD Bar
D:\Bar> E:
E:\> C:
C:\Foo> D:
D:\Bar> E:
E:\> DIR C:
--lists everything in C:\Bar--
E:\> DIR C:\
--lists everything in C:\--
How random is that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.06.2011 12:51, schrieb Invisible:
> Unix has a concept of "current working directory". Windows has an
> identical concept. But did you know that Windows keeps a working
> directory FOR EVERY DRIVE?
Yes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/06/2011 12:11, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.06.2011 12:51, schrieb Invisible:
>> Unix has a concept of "current working directory". Windows has an
>> identical concept. But did you know that Windows keeps a working
>> directory FOR EVERY DRIVE?
>
> Yes.
And thus C:\ and C: are two different paths. Except that sometimes they
point to the same place...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.06.2011 13:18, schrieb Invisible:
> On 01/06/2011 12:11, clipka wrote:
>> Am 01.06.2011 12:51, schrieb Invisible:
>>> Unix has a concept of "current working directory". Windows has an
>>> identical concept. But did you know that Windows keeps a working
>>> directory FOR EVERY DRIVE?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> And thus C:\ and C: are two different paths. Except that sometimes they
> point to the same place...
Yes.
It's one of those relics from the time when MS-DOS started out as a CP/M
clone with a few added features. CP/M did have the concept of drives but
didn't have directories, so one working directory per drive would give
you the opportunity to have programs ported from CP/M stick to drives
only, and yet prevent them from spamming the main directories of each
drive they'd work on.
So back then it was probably a good idea.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/06/2011 12:30, clipka wrote:
> It's one of those relics from the time when MS-DOS started out as a CP/M
> clone with a few added features. CP/M did have the concept of drives but
> didn't have directories, so one working directory per drive would give
> you the opportunity to have programs ported from CP/M stick to drives
> only, and yet prevent them from spamming the main directories of each
> drive they'd work on.
>
> So back then it was probably a good idea.
Oh... my God! o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 01/06/2011 12:30, clipka wrote:
>
>> It's one of those relics from the time when MS-DOS started out as a CP/M
>> clone with a few added features. CP/M did have the concept of drives but
>> didn't have directories, so one working directory per drive would give
>> you the opportunity to have programs ported from CP/M stick to drives
>> only, and yet prevent them from spamming the main directories of each
>> drive they'd work on.
>>
>> So back then it was probably a good idea.
>
> Oh... my God! o_O
OSes are like cities: built on top of the ruins of older ones...
(Don't remember who said it, I think it was a PC Week columnist who was
writing about solving a "NO ROM BASIC" error after installing Linux on
her machine)
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Oh... my God! o_O
>
> OSes are like cities: built on top of the ruins of older ones...
This seems to be the main think that's broken about both Windows and
Linux. Too many decades of backwards compatibility.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.06.2011 15:52, schrieb Invisible:
>>> Oh... my God! o_O
>>
>> OSes are like cities: built on top of the ruins of older ones...
>
> This seems to be the main think that's broken about both Windows and
> Linux. Too many decades of backwards compatibility.
Coincidentally that's exactly what made them successful in the first
place (as opposed to e.g. BeOS). You know, avoiding the hen-and-egg
problem of OS vs. applications.
Hm... which makes me think: Has there ever been any attempts yet to
implement a stand-alone JVM as an OS?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/1/2011 6:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> So back then it was probably a good idea.
>
> Oh... my God! o_O
That's gonna be my answer to everything: "Well, it seemed like a good
idea at the time."
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:51:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> How random is that?
Not very, it makes sense that they'd maintain the state of each drive
letter in memory. That's why on older DOS machines you had the LASTDRIVE
directive in CONFIG.SYS.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
