[Techtalk] Linux file system versus dos/win model

[gossamer axe]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Anne Wainwright
<anotheranne at fables.co.za>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'
>

On our server at work, I'm not sure how this works for home XP, but we run
2003 and you can mount a drive within the file system in Windows.  I would
assume that microsoft is trying to catch up to Linux/Unix with this feature.



> 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?
>


Being able to mount within a file system has more advantages than drive
lettering.  I can mount /dev/sdb1 under /usr to extend my file system and
save room on /dev/hda  or mount another partition at /home so I can fill it
up w/out worrying about running out of room.
The best reason is that when I mount a seperate drive for /home and I change
to a different distribution, I don't have to copy all of my files to another
computer or burn to a DVD just to reinstall.

This was one of the features of Linux that once I learned more about it, I
loved the most.  I also love the fact that with NFS I can share my drive,
and my Mom can access digital pictures from my machine by mounting it on her
machine and creating a soft link in her home directory.   It's a fantastic
feature but most people don't understand why I get so excited about it.
They think F:\ or E:\ is just as good.

-- 
Gossamer Axe
gsmraxe at gmail.com
http://gypsy.sytes.net/