[Techtalk] Linux file system versus dos/win model
Stephanie
witchyway at mac.com
Wed Jul 30 13:41:41 UTC 2008
Hello,
I didn't see it mentioned anywhere within the discussion and thought it might be fun side but related tidbit for the curious. A while ago I had questions surrounding differences between Linux_FS and DOS_FS. Especially the whole thing with why the use of a forward slashes in LInux and back slashes in DOS/Windows within file path naming conventions. Initially I thought I would find that this was MS just trying to assert evil and inconvenience to Linux users but it turns out it was much more benign than that :)....
Basically came across info that explained that DOS/Windows ended up using back slashes in this way because way back when (pre Windows GUI) they implemented the use of forward slashes as the syntax for specifying command line options. Similar to the use of the short dash, "-" used in Linux for specifying command line options.
E.g. The following DOS command, "ipconfig" will give a basic listing of your computer's LAN info (DNS suffix, IP Address, Subnet, Default Gateway). However a much more in depth detail is provided by using the "all" option as shown below.
C:\ Documents and Setting\stephanie> ipconifg /all
<returns detailed LAN information>
Is it the whole truth of the matter? Not 100% sure, but remember at the time it seemed like a pretty credible explanation. Unfortunately I don't have a source as it was a while ago, but it probably wouldn't be hard to find.
Enjoy!
:) Stephanie
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Linux file system versus dos/win model (Anne Wainwright)
> 2. Re: Linux file system versus dos/win model (Carla Schroder)
> 3. Re: Linux file system versus dos/win model (mandi)
> 4. Re: Linux file system versus dos/win model (Miriam English)
> 5. Re: Linux file system versus dos/win model (Elwing)
> 6. Re: Linux file system versus dos/win model (Benjamin M. A'Lee)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:28:47 +0200
>From: Anne Wainwright <anotheranne at fables.co.za>
>Subject: [Techtalk] Linux file system versus dos/win model
>To: "Techtalk" <techtalk at linuxchix.org>
>Message-ID: <20080729232847.0076881d.anotheranne at fables.co.za>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>Hello,
>
>Looking for some knowledge here.
>
>One of the reasons I often read for the superiority of linux over windows is oft-touted statement that under linux 'everything is mounted on one contiguous file system'
>
>So if I mount my usb stick on linux it comes up on the file system under /flash
>
>If I mount it on windows (well, plug it it) then it comes up as 'F' with my allocated name of Sahara.
>
>How is this any different? Both are shown on a tree-like structure. I can move files from the device to any other part of the tree with equal facility. What am I missing here, what in essence is the real difference?
>
>bestest
>Anne
>
>--
>so much to do, so little time :(
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:28:10 -0700
>From: Carla Schroder <carla at bratgrrl.com>
>Subject: Re: [Techtalk] Linux file system versus dos/win model
>To: techtalk at linuxchix.org
>Message-ID: <200807291528.10512.carla at bratgrrl.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>On Tuesday 29 July 2008 14:28:47 Anne Wainwright wrote:
>> One of the reasons I often read for the superiority of linux over windows is
>oft-touted statement that under linux 'everything is mounted on one
>contiguous file system'
>>
>> So if I mount my usb stick on linux it comes up on the file system
>under /flash
>>
>> If I mount it on windows (well, plug it it) then it comes up as 'F' with my
>allocated name of Sahara.
>>
>> How is this any different? Both are shown on a tree-like structure. I can
>move files from the device to any other part of the tree with equal
>facility. ?What am I missing here, what in essence is the real difference?
>>
>
>On a single PC that is not connected to a network it doesn't matter. On a
>network it makes a huge difference, because Windows drive letters are purely
>local. So in a Windows network they have to fall back on a Unix-type
>addressing convention, because you cannot mount the filesystem on D:, for one
>example, on another computer on the network by using the drive letter.
>
>In a feeble effort to be Innovative and Original, and to also make network
>filesharing possible, Microsoft came up with UNC (Uniform Naming Convention),
>which in a stunning display of ingenuity imitates Unix filepaths, except the
>slashes go the wrong way and there are different numbers of them, like this:
>
>\\server\share\filedirectory
>
>On a Unixy system it looks like this:
>
>server:/share/filedirectory
>
>Windows users can map UNCs to local drive letters, which is convenient for
>creating a persistent mount, but I think it's an unnecessary complication
>because it hides the real filepath, and I have wasted way too many hours of
>my life trying to debug user problems when they are understandably confused
>by all of this useless abstraction.
>
>Carla
>
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Carla Schroder
>check out the shiny new Linux Networking Cookbook!
>Chock full o' step-by-step howtos for network admins!
>http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596102487/
>
>many more Linux howtos at
>http://tuxcomputing.com/
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:34:38 -0400
>From: "mandi" <mandi at linuxchick.org>
>Subject: Re: [Techtalk] Linux file system versus dos/win model
>To: Anne Wainwright <anotheranne at fables.co.za>, "Techtalk"
> <techtalk at linuxchix.org>
>Message-ID: <20080729223438.M61792 at linuxchick.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>Hi Anne.
>
>
>In the most pedantic sense, "/" is the root of the filesystem in Linux and
>Unix, and you can add whatever additional storage devices and remote shares to
>it wherever you want to.
>
>In Windows, "C:\" is the "root" of the "C Drive", while "F:\" is the "root" of
>the "F Drive". there is no structure above C:\ and F:\ to unify them under a
>single true filesystem, so the holistic "My Computer" is added to make one
>file space out of them.
>
>You can also mount your flash drive anywhere in the file system. If you want
>it to be /home/anne/flash, it can be mounted that way, instead of /flash. most
>modern linux distributions provide automounting of USB devices under /mnt or
>/flash to make the drives obvious.
>
>A remote filesystem, which would be mounted as a lettered drive in Windows,
>can also be mounted anywhere in your Linux file system, whether it is a samba
>mount to Windows or an NFS mount to another Unix system.
>
>you can navigate through directories of any regular, special, and remote files
>using all the same tools. There is no concept of "hidden files".
>
>The key to a Linux or UNIX-like filesystem is that not only are objects that
>normally lend themselves to being files treated as files, but so is everything
>else.
>
>Your mouse is a file, probably /dev/mouse
>Your terminal is a file, like /dev/tty0
>The parallel port is a file, /dev/lp0
>
>The kernel keeps track of all these "devices" in a file system under /dev.
>They have special attributes that set them apart from regular files.
>
>Hope that sheds some light on things.
>
>--mandi
>
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:28:47 +0200, Anne Wainwright wrote
>> Hello,
>>
>> Looking for some knowledge here.
>>
>> One of the reasons I often read for the superiority of linux over
>> windows is oft-touted statement that under linux 'everything is
>> mounted on one contiguous file system'
>>
>> So if I mount my usb stick on linux it comes up on the file system
>> under /flash
>>
>> If I mount it on windows (well, plug it it) then it comes up as 'F'
>> with my allocated name of Sahara.
>>
>> How is this any different? Both are shown on a tree-like structure.
>> I can move files from the device to any other part of the tree with
>> equal facility. What am I missing here, what in essence is the real
>> difference?
>>
>> bestest
>> Anne
>>
>> --
>> so much to do, so little time :(
>> _______________________________________________
>> Techtalk mailing list
>> Techtalk at linuxchix.org
>> http://mailman.linuxchix.org/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:51:40 +1000
>From: Miriam English <mim at miriam-english.org>
>Subject: Re: [Techtalk] Linux file system versus dos/win model
>Cc: Techtalk <techtalk at linuxchix.org>
>Message-ID: <488F9EFC.2080807 at miriam-english.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>I'd be interested in the answer to this too. It always seemed to me that
>the Linux way of doing this makes for a couple of inconveniences.
>
>It makes it harder to restrict a search to the main hard drive without
>unmounting other drives or breaking the search into smaller parts. For
>example if I'm looking for a particular program on the main boot hard
>drive I need to either separately search /bin, /usr, /root, and any
>other likely spots or else unmount any other drives attached to the
>filesystem before searching /
>
>The other problem is a conceptual one. Having the boot drive mounted
>inside itself is just weird. Having all the other drives mounted inside
>that one too is also counterintuitive. Things like this make it more
>difficult for newcomers to Linux than it needs to be.
>
>Best wishes,
>
> - Miriam
>
>
>Anne Wainwright wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Looking for some knowledge here.
>>
>> One of the reasons I often read for the superiority of linux over windows is oft-touted statement that under linux 'everything is mounted on one contiguous file system'
>>
>> So if I mount my usb stick on linux it comes up on the file system under /flash
>>
>> If I mount it on windows (well, plug it it) then it comes up as 'F' with my allocated name of Sahara.
>>
>> How is this any different? Both are shown on a tree-like structure. I can move files from the device to any other part of the tree with equal facility. What am I missing here, what in essence is the real difference?
>>
>> bestest
>> Anne
>>
>
>--
>My time wasn't completely wasted last year.
>I went on a 940 million kilometer journey.
>-----
>Website: http://miriam-english.org
>Blog: http://miriam_e.livejournal.com
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:04:18 -0400
>From: Elwing <elwing at elwing.org>
>Subject: Re: [Techtalk] Linux file system versus dos/win model
>To: Techtalk <techtalk at linuxchix.org>
>Message-ID: <E3AC945F-20E2-404C-A132-47977F2A2CAD at elwing.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>
>On Jul 29, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Miriam English wrote:
>
>> I'd be interested in the answer to this too. It always seemed to me
>> that
>> the Linux way of doing this makes for a couple of inconveniences.
>>
>> It makes it harder to restrict a search to the main hard drive without
>> unmounting other drives or breaking the search into smaller parts. For
>> example if I'm looking for a particular program on the main boot hard
>> drive I need to either separately search /bin, /usr, /root, and any
>> other likely spots or else unmount any other drives attached to the
>> filesystem before searching /
>
>
>just FYI
>
>You can restrict find using the -mount, -xdev or -x command (depending
>on the version of find that you have)
>
>It limits find to only the device you start from
>so if you have / and /usb
>and you do
>find / -name "filename" -x it will only search / and not /usb
>
>Might make your life easier :)
>
>Elwing
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:46:14 +0100
>From: "Benjamin M. A'Lee" <bma at subvert.org.uk>
>Subject: Re: [Techtalk] Linux file system versus dos/win model
>To: Techtalk <techtalk at linuxchix.org>
>Message-ID: <20080729214614.GA25625 at daltrey.subvert.org.uk>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:28:47PM +0200, Anne Wainwright wrote:
>> One of the reasons I often read for the superiority of linux over
>> windows is oft-touted statement that under linux 'everything is
>> mounted on one contiguous file system'
>>
>> So if I mount my usb stick on linux it comes up on the file system
>> under /flash
>>
>> If I mount it on windows (well, plug it it) then it comes up as 'F'
>> with my allocated name of Sahara.
>>
>> How is this any different? Both are shown on a tree-like structure. I
>> can move files from the device to any other part of the tree with
>> equal facility. What am I missing here, what in essence is the real
>> difference?
>
>With Windows, you don't have control over where it goes, beyond choosing
>a letter for it.
>
>Under Unix/Linux, you can put it anywhere - under /mnt, in your home
>directory, etc; the same drive can also be mounted in more than one
>different place at a time (mount -o bind).
>
>I wouldn't say it's a massive advantage, but it does allow a little
>extra flexibility and control.
>
>--
>Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: bma at subvert.org.uk
>web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Techtalk mailing list
>Techtalk at linuxchix.org
>http://mailman.linuxchix.org/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
>
>
>End of Techtalk Digest, Vol 65, Issue 17
>****************************************
>
>
More information about the Techtalk
mailing list