Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:43:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200008241243.OAA00184@dphdse.saclay.cea.fr> From: Jean-Paul Le Fevre To: earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com CC: J-P DOT LeFevre AT cea DOT fr, cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com In-reply-to: <20000824115435.26205.qmail@web108.yahoomail.com> (message from Earnie Boyd on Thu, 24 Aug 2000 04:54:35 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: Why not mount / at C: ? References: <20000824115435 DOT 26205 DOT qmail AT web108 DOT yahoomail DOT com> Could you confirm that it is just a simple "recommendation" ? The FAQ states : "You are strongly urged not to choose something like 'C:\'." I'm worrying about something which could be dangerous, or which could screw up my registries or make my PC unusable. I'm kinda newbie in Windows, so ... In my (humble) opinion : I want to have a Windows box as similar as possible as a Linux box. It is very convenient to have a file hierarchy under Windows looking like a Unix tree : sharing environment, settings, etc. between both worlds is easier. Anyway, the risk of confusion, that you mention, between packages seems very low : it's very unlikely to find c:/bin, c:/lib, c:/home ... in a pure Windows installation. Usually Win stuff goes into C:\Program Files, or c:\WINNT. Moreover, being an experienced Unixian, I ( generally ;) realize what are the files I'm manipulating ! -- ____________________________________________________________________________ Jean-Paul Le Fèvre - CEA Saclay DAPNIA/SEI - Mail : Jean-Paul DOT LeFevre AT cea DOT fr -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com