Hello,
Windows-versions inherit the odd system of disk drive letters from the old CP/M
Unix-versions (Solaris, Linux, BSD, BeOS, MacOS X, NextStep, ...) don't have this nonelastic system of drive letters for addressing. The file system is here independent of the hardware. The hardware (disks, floppies, cdroms, ram, ...) cant be mounted via mountpoints in the file system.
ReactOS have to use the odd system of disk drive letters to be compatible with Windows, OS2 and DOS.
But I think it is possible to use moint point too. DOS have the JOIN-command for this:
Windows XP have the GUI diskmgmt.msc for this. I don't no if XP have a command line tool like the Unix "mount" (I don't use Windows normally).
Will ReactOS have the capability for using moint point?
Is it possible to use this capability in the start process like the /etc/fstab in Unix?
thanks
alexsunny
Disk Drives vs. Mount Points ?.
Moderator: Moderator Team
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 4:54 pm
Disk Drives vs. Mount Points ?.
Last edited by alexsunny123 on Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
- EmuandCo
- Developer
- Posts: 4730
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
- Contact:
Re: Disk Drives vs. Mount Points ?.
Whatever Windows allows to do is possible in ROS either. If not then we have a bug or missing function. Windows does not use any drive letters internally. There you find names like: multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1).
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.
If my post/reply offends or insults you, be sure that you know what sarcasm is...
If my post/reply offends or insults you, be sure that you know what sarcasm is...
Re: Disk Drives vs. Mount Points ?.
Otherwise you can use NT device paths, for example: \??\Device\HarddiskVolumeN (with N a number) and you get the same system as *nix systems too.alexsunny123 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:34 am Unix-versions (Solaris, Linux, BSD, BeOS, MacOS X, NextStep, ...) don't have this nonelastic system of drive letters for addressing. The file system is here independent of the hardware. The hardware (disks, floppies, cdroms, ram, ...) cant be mounted via mountpoints in the file system.
Re: Disk Drives vs. Mount Points ?.
why you are pushing your preference as some indisputable truth? that system with using say "forest" of FS hierarchy trees with each own root, marked with the letter, instead of just one is not "odd". not for everybody. for example I like it way more, than the nuxi approach. and oppositely, I do dislike the nuxi one tree approach. I want to see my storage volumes clearly, and "lettering" drives allow me this. whereas dissecting unix one tree with something like mount -l just spits tons of garbage in the face. forest of trees is more convenient to use for an interactive user, that is for a human.Windows-versions inherit the odd system of disk drive letters from the old CP/M
Unix-versions (Solaris, Linux, BSD, BeOS, MacOS X, NextStep, ...) don't have this nonelastic system of drive letters for addressing. The file system is here independent of the hardware. The hardware (disks, floppies, cdroms, ram, ...) cant be mounted via mountpoints in the file system.
seriously, how drive letters are "non-elastic" and "hardware dependent"? the only difference, that unix glues all the volumes together in one tree for a user, whereas Windows represents every volume as it is - a standalone tree, so you have a forest of trees. if you are more used to the unix variant, that is ok, but it doesn't make it more "elastic" and "hardware independent", whatever you meant by that.don't have this nonelastic system of drive letters for addressing. The file system is here independent of the hardware
questions like "why reactos/windows is not like unix" are nonsense. statistically all variants of forum questions may exist, so you ask nonsense, other one asks good questions, that are helpful for them or others, the third is just a spammer. the same is with OS approaches - Windows uses a cool approach for reopresenting storage to the user, unix clones use a sucky one.
will ReactOS support the sucky unix approach? you got the answer - ReactOS aims to be very compatible with Windows, so if there some decides to put this into Windows, then eventually it will be available in ReactOS. but maybe you are better off to keep using your NextStep if you love it so much?
I suspect, then they will be dissatisfied with using backslash. because unix cannot use both as a delimiter. doh. maybe slash is more elastic?Otherwise you can use NT device paths, for example: \??\Device\HarddiskVolumeN (with N a number) and you get the same system as *nix systems too.
Re: Disk Drives vs. Mount Points ?.
a better question will ReactOS support more than 26 drives/partitions in windows you can use NTFS volume mount point
-
- Posts: 531
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:17 pm
- Contact:
Re: Disk Drives vs. Mount Points ?.
ROS had better support Volume Mount Points:
Volume Mount Points are supported from NTFS 3.0, which was introduced with Windows 2000.
Re: Disk Drives vs. Mount Points ?.
The NTFS support for volume mount points, is that it allows you to create these symbolic "directory" links within a NTFS volume, to some other volume.
But even without NTFS you can still have volume mount points, managed by the mount manager, that appear in the NT namespace as \??\Volume{SOME-GUID-HERE} . Then you can always create a symlink to these with a more user-friendly name and access that as a volume.
So again, that *nix-like functionality is already present in NT, and in a more general way.
But even without NTFS you can still have volume mount points, managed by the mount manager, that appear in the NT namespace as \??\Volume{SOME-GUID-HERE} . Then you can always create a symlink to these with a more user-friendly name and access that as a volume.
So again, that *nix-like functionality is already present in NT, and in a more general way.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests