Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Bernard A Badger" <bab AT vx DOT com>
To: "CygWin Users' List" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: Need help in umounting  the auto mounted  mount points
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:38:57 -0400
Message-ID: <INEKLKBFCDBPKMKAJLMDAEAACEAA.bab@vx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <20020606151505.GC12375@justpickone.org>
Importance: Normal

I expected it to be mentioned already, but since it hasn't, here goes:

The old method, "//c/usr/bin", is incompatible with UNC (Universal Naming
Convention?) names like "//Host/share/dir/file".  That is, if the string
starts with //, it's supposed to be followed by a machine name, and a share
name.  If "/cygdrive/x" is too long for you, set up links, e.g.:
ln -s /cygdrive/x /X
or change the prefix to /drv or something.

I tried changing the prefix, but found it less convenient than using links.
There are too many scripts already written that assume /cygdrive/x exists.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com [mailto:cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com]On Behalf
> Of David T-G
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:15 AM
> To: CygWin Users' List
> Subject: Re: Need help in umounting the auto mounted mount points
>
>
> Christopher, et al --
>
> ...and then Christopher Faylor said...
> %
> % On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:51:41AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> % >That's what I heard, too.  I was very happy with the B20 //c access and
> % >quite confused and dismayed by the change to /cygwin/c when I first met
> % >it.
>
> Please take special note of the last five words of the sentence above.
>
>
> %
> % Some day, in the far far distant future, as the sun slowly dies and the
> % Earth is nearly lifeless, all that will be left is the cockroaches,
>
> *grin*
>
>
> % scuttling across the face of the planet, eating lichen, and complaining
>
> I should make it clear that it's not that I feel that B20 was better
> (or worse) but that the software has (unsurprisingly, and much to my
> appreciation even if it may not sound like it) undergone such radical
> growth and development in the time between of my downloading B20 and then
> its patch (or was it B19 patched to B20?) and meeting up with Cygwin as
> it is today.
>
> Now, I'm a UNIX SysAdmin with a long brag sheet and I've done a lot
> with a lot of tools under DOS and Win*, so even though I'm not much of
> a programmer I like to think that I can find my way around.  So many
> things (naturally) had changed in that time, though, that while I have
> perl and scp and lots of other great stuff available right in cygwin
> (hey, perhaps *that* is why nsperl went away!) I also have this funny
> /cygdrive thing and can't just save one file on my software CD and know
> that I can reinstall after a disaster and ...  It's a learning curve
> thing, that's all.
>
> Am I pining for the good old days of B*?  No.  Am I reticent to change
> away from what is time-worn and comfortable?  Of course.  Do I know what
> the heck is going on yet?  Not really.
>
>
> % about how Cygwin B20 was so much better than cygwin 1.13976.117 .
>
> I was going to make a smart-ass crack here but I suppose it might not go
> over so well at this point.
>
>
> %
> % cgf
>
>
> HAND
>
> :-D
> --
> David T-G                      * It's easier to fight for one's principles
> (play) davidtg AT justpickone DOT org * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
> (work) davidtgwork AT justpickone DOT org
> http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/    Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
>
>


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/