Do you like drive letters? I think it's a good system.

File: 1453616601700.jpg (474KB, 3264x4413px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 3264x4413px

>>52622921
I'd like to know why they chose to assign drive letters the way they did. Why not make the primary partition A, followed by subsequent partitions and then start assigning removeable devices?

Because floppy drives came first and hard drives were invented later. Early PCs had one or two floppy drives so a: and b: were assigned to those. When hard drives came along, the a: and b: assignments couldn't be changed so the hard drives started at c:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ADrive_letter_assignment

>>52622921
It works. I haven't experienced using any of its alternatives.

>>52622921
In theory the Linux system is better but having to find a place to mount is annoying. I was a winbabby too long so I'm used to drive letters

>>52622921
It's a dumb system because it's not obvious where the system root is.

>>52622993
its in C
everyone knows this

(C:)

>>52622993
Except that we all know that it's C:\ I mean you're right, but it's consistent across the OS versions

>>52622993
%root% or %systemroot% I don't remember

>>52622966
In the early 80s there were expansion chassis with more floppy drives, which meant that some people had floppy drives C: and D:.

>>52622976
it annoyed me when I switched and sometimes still does, but it makes sense why they did it that way. it's a lot more flexible.

>>52622976
>having to find a place to mount is annoying
When do you have to find a place? I always either want it in a specific place and so mount it there, or just use /mnt/foo.

>>52623082
I usually make a folder to mount to. Is foo a built in thing? I mean you can't mount it to a directory which doesn't exist, right?

>>52623163
/mnt is a standard part of the Linux filesystem hierarchy, available on all compliant Linux systems. It is specifically made to be "the directory for mounting stuff that doesn't need to be anywhere in particular".

I was using "foo" as a placeholder for whatever you want to call the mount point.

The unix setup for mounting partitions is much more elegant and makes more sense. Drive letters are completely arbitrary, that and treating devices like files makes imputing and outputting to these devices much easier.

>>52623039
kek

I like the way that UNIX treats the drives: they're a support media only, not the root of the filesystem.
In other ways, I find the traditional Filesystem hierarchy too antiquate.

>>52623025
implying you can't change the drive letter

It only becomes troublesome when you actually use up all the drive letters. (I've had it happen)

Although you can mount directories in Windows, I still prefer to use drive letters. It's not enough of a big deal for me to care.

>>52623025
>implying DOS never booted from floppies and no one has ever changed the windows hard disk drive letter before

ITT: people don't understand what it means to imply something

>>52623163
'foo' is one of the conventions for code 'examples' that I never really liked, but everyone else seems to use.

'foo' and 'bar' are for some reason very common ones.
Some python documentation uses 'spam' and 'egg' based on this sketch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_eYSuPKP3Y

Personally I always would use something like '/mnt/mountdirname'

>>52623553
>implying DOS never booted from floppies
unlike unix users, windows users are not paralyzed with consideration for what people did 25 years ago.

>>52622921
>I think it's a good system.

It triggers linfags, so it's good.

>>52623616
>implying Windows isn't tied to the past

>>52623616
Then why do we use C:\ instead of A:\ if we aren't stuck in the past?
Windows 10 doesn't even support floppy drives anymore and yet you still use C:\.

Also, literally the only reason people still use windows is because it's what the predecessors to the current commercial software used and it's what people are used to.
Fucking hypocrite.

>>52623671
>Also, literally the only reason people still use windows is because it's what the predecessors to the current commercial software used and it's what people are used to.

Also, it works

>>52623701
And also because it is THE plataform on PC.
Unix and Unix-like systems never were very relevant on PC to begin.

>2016
>drive numbering begins at C

>>52623701
>Windows works
That's a bit of a stretch - I wouldn't go that far.
Just googling 'windows 7 reboot loop' shows one of many cases where it clearly didn't. Face it - windows has the same problems linux does but without any of the tools to fix it.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/978421

Also, fixing a windows update-caused reboot loop is pure hell, since the windows update program can't be inspected in source.

>>52623769

>Being this autistic

>>52623793

No

C:\DOS
C:\DOS\RUN
RUN\DOS\RUN

File: 1453687420717.jpg (900KB, 2560x1707px) Image search: [Google]

900KB, 2560x1707px

>>52622966
she is perfect :3

>>52622921
Drive letters as an idea are fine, I guess, but the fact that they're a fundamental concept you have to deal with when handling paths rather than an abstraction on top of arbitrary mount points is a pain in the ass, and, as far as I know, provides no benefit.

On Linux, I can describe how paths work very succinctly. A path is either relative or absolute. An absolute path begins with "/", while a relative path does not. A path is a sequence of names, separated by "/". A name is an arbitrary non-empty sequence of bytes other than null or "/". The names "." and ".." are reserved, and refer to the current directory and parent directory respectively. Trailing slashes are meaningless, except for the path to the root directory, which is simply "/".

On Windows, they are way more complicated (drive letters and other prefixes like \\foo, paths are almost UTF-16 but not quite, etc).

File: os2.jpg (3MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4608x3456px

>>52623727
And also because it is THE plataform on PC.
>plataform
Also, I think the creator of the PC disagreed somewhat, thinking of PC DOS and later windows as aborted pieces of shit that were licensed from MS in a rush to get their product out the door, with the intent of using a safe and stable OS in the future. Too bad that never caught on.

Also, linux was designed for 386 PC's because everyone knew unix was a superior OS to DOS/windows and had more potential.

>>52623793
>this confimation bias
>this beating about the bush

>>52623820

Irrelevant

File: AMemeIsBirthed.png (3MB, 3600x2700px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3600x2700px

>>52623039

>>52623844
I think he's actually on-topic.
Talking about problems with the drive letter system isn't relevant in a thread that opens with:
>Do you like drive letters?
>I think it's a good system.

>>52623769
>numbering

>>52623869
:^)

>>52623834
>Also, linux was designed for 386 PC's because everyone knew unix was a superior OS
Nah, only because linus was a poorfag who hadn't money to buy a unix licence, but know how to code.
And also because every CS academy masturbates furiosly on UNIX to talk about OS theory and development.
And also because GNU didn't have a fucking kernel to his abortion.

>>52623869
This cannot be unseen.

Thankfully I use debian and don't have to.

>>52623844
Irrelevant how? My main point was that drive letters (or at least how they are currently implemented) on windows make all path handling more complicated, yet provide no benefit over mount points, which don't complicate path handling.

>>52623039

(ᐛ)/

>>52623889
does "enumeration" satisfy your pedantry?

>>52623928
Yes

>>52623082
this

Also you can be a retard tier faggot and mount it in your home directory (i did this when i first started, i still do it, somedays it's just easier

>>52623671
A lot of windows stuck in the past is because old farts

Not that many older people give a fuck about drive letters or anything thats not stupid simple.. (unless said old fuck was a comp-engineer, in which case, i'm sure he won't give a fuck trying to find letters)

in regards to >>52622921
Amiga > Linux > Windows (newer)> DOS(win9x)

I liked Amiga's Drive thing DF for floppy DH for hard disk, they had some other cool things to, iirc - Little known fact: Windows (at least 7+ maybe XP\Vista) has mount points, so thats nice

The worst thing about assignment is that Windows blows at Multipart mounting and by that i mean it's non existant for external usb sticks.

>>52623578
>implying we're using "implying" in the wrong context for 4chan

Are you new or something?

>>52623894
>Nah, only because linus was a poorfag who hadn't money to buy a unix licence, but know how to code.
You don't know the history that well.

He did it as a hobby, not to create a unix-like OS from the outset. Note how he never says the word 'unix' in the initial newsgroup post.

>I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
>professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
>since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on
>things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
>(same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
>among other things).
>
>I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.
>This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and
>I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions
>are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)
>
> Linus ([email protected])
>
>PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
>It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
>will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.

>>52623911
>Irrelevant how? My main point was that drive letters (or at least how they are currently implemented) on windows make all path handling more complicated, yet provide no benefit over mount points, which don't complicate path handling.

And yet in the real world nobody cares

>>52623945
no, you're just doing it so poorly one could ask the same of you

>>52623834
All of this is only relevant to Windows 9x.

Windows NT was available in 1993, and kicked the shit out of Unix and OS/2 in the high end sector.

>>52623950
I had read that also he wanted to use a UNIX who hasn't Minix, but GNU wasn't inexistent.
Anyway, the point isn't that. Most users of PC in that decade where using DOS, Windows 3.1 or Mac System 7

>>52623940
>The worst thing about assignment is that Windows blows at Multipart mounting and by that i mean it's non existant for external usb sticks.

Actually that depends entirely on a single bit programmed into a microcontroller on a flash drive. If it reports itself as removable, windows in it's godly wisdom decides 'oh, this must be a really really really high density floppy' and will only allow one partition.

Part of the 'windows 8 compatibility' requirement for flash drives is that they identify as normal (internal-style) hard disks instead of 'removable devices', to make up for this colossal oversight. This is because of windows 8 enterprise's ability to make a portable windows boot flash drive (which Linux users had had for a decade).

Tl;DR windows drive letters suck ass, their USB storage class sucks even worse, and MS can bend standards to it's will to ignore the fact that it was designed poorly to begin with.

>>52624030
>Windows NT was available in 1993, and kicked the shit out of Unix and OS/2 in the high end sector.

It was multiplatform too

>>52623984
I care, as does anyone who has to write cross-platform software (a large number of people, it turns out!), or software that does any non-trivial filesystem stuff on Windows.

OP cares, since he made a thread about this exact topic. You probably care too, since you replied to the thread.

>>52624058
His problem with minix was that Tanenbaum (author of minix) did not want his source to be used for anything but educational purposes. It wasn't truly GNU/stallman-tier free software.

>>52624083
I care because I wanted to put a NTFS partition on my ipod classic years ago (and apple's operating system and rockbox only boot on FAT32 or HFS+ filesystems). This was for files larger than 4GB (because again, windows sucks). Couldn't be done, and so I had to make multipart 7z archives just to copy a movie to another computer.

>>52623993
>deflecting

Nice.

>>52624117
that was a direct answer

>>52624083
>I care

Chill out

>>52624091
No, it wasn't that problem that made Linus write his kernel. It was in fact that Minix then was very limited too (16 bits in where processors started to do 32 bits) and he would have to rewrite the entire operating system.
Linus himself used his own license to begin, that's not very GNU tier.

>>52624030
NT kernel is an overengineered piece of crap.

>>52624216
>source: My ass

>>52624216
whatever the hell that's supposed to mean

>>52624236
Problaby becauses doesn't follow "muh cat-v.org" shit or something

>>52624216
>NT kernel is an overengineered piece of crap.

Al least it's engineered

>>52624078
>tfw PowerPC outside of embebbed world is dead
>tfw you will never ran Windows 10 on a 64-bit 3.0 Ghz PowerPC
>tfw IBM didn't care about PowerPC on PC

>>52624231
>>52624236
90s OOP circle jerking in kernel space brought to you by the people that created COM.

>>52622921
>install a floppy drive on a legacy computer
>it's assigned label F:
maybe it was a good idea a hundred years ago?

>>52624273
Spotted the cat-v.org autist.

>>52624231
Go read the leaked windows 2000 source code.

>>52624254
Thats at least one improvement to Dos.

>>52624297
90% marketshare
Good enough

>>52624078
>It was multiplatform too
>one version ran on powerPC and MIPS
>A different version ran on the NEC PC-98 (not IBM-compatible)
>One version ran on itanium and it was abandoned too
>One version ran on ARM and enforced digital code signing and was rightly discontinued as a piece of shit
meanwhile:
netBSD runs on and has continued to run on
>mac 68k
>amiga (68k and PPC)
>Atari Falcon
>MIPS
>other 68000/PPC
>ARM
and unofficially:
>NEC PC-98
many others I don't give a fuck about
And linux runs on:

>mac 68k
>amiga (68k and PPC)
>Atari Falcon
>MIPS
>other 68000/PPC
>ARM
>broadcom SOC's
>many other company's SOC's
>DEC Alpha
>Analog Blackfin
>AVR32
>TMS320 DSP's
>PA-RISC
>Hitachi H8
>IBM System/390
>IBM Z/Architecture
>Itanium
>M32R
>OpenRISC (Used by NASA with linux)
>Power (different from PowerPC)
>SPARC
>SuperH (sega dreamcast) (yeah, I know windows CE can run on a dreamcast too, but so much more bloat and it's still not full windows)
>Microblaze
unofficially:
>PC-98 https://en.osdn.jp/projects/linux98/
Probably still missing some.
Anyway, windows at some point in the past supporting a couple other architectures (and PC-98 which is the same architecture with different addresses for things) is pitiful by comparison.

When you get windows to boot on a Linksys router let me know.

>>52624297
I didn't find problems with it, except the abundance of legacy crap.

>>52624309
Yeah. I care so much about trying to boot Windows in a router.
I also want my dog to develop computability theorems.

File: thinkpad800.jpg (373KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1280x853px

>>52624272
>tfw IBM did care about PowerPC on PC

>>52624309
>When you get windows to boot on a Linksys router let me know.

Do you think I care what OS runs on my router / fridge ?

>>52624325
You clearly didn't look at the filesystem drivers.

Or internet exploder.

>>52623457
But thats where it always starts

File: nexus6.jpg (87KB, 980x653px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 980x653px

>>52624346
>putting your fingers in your ears when you're being told that you're surrounded by millions of linux-based devices

>>52624309
why the fuck would anybody want to run netBSD on any of those platforms instead of just using contemporary software?

>>52624348
>NT is overenginnered crap
>look at the loadable modules and a userspace application

>>52624348
>You clearly didn't look at the filesystem drivers.

Does that forbid me form running AutoCAD?
No?
Moot problem then.>>52624368
>surrounded by millions of linux-based devices

>>52624341
>tfw short lived
>tfw Apple tried to inject new life on it
>tfw IBM didn't care on solve thermal problems on PowerPC 970

>>52624354
Try booting DOS from a floppy and then tell me that. Some PC's didn't even have hard disks installed.

>>52624368
>surrounded by millions of linux-based devices

I have used an Android Phone. No major complaints.
On the other hand linux on the desktop is utter shit.

>>52624368
And SO?
You also want you cat to do drive cars?

>>52624368
I don't care what operating system my toaster runs on, and frankly I'd rather have a toaster with no software at all.

>>52624369
You didn't even look at the TL;DR.

I mentioned linux right below it with an even larger amount of platform support. Openness leads to portablility, even though Linus didn't think it would ever be portable (see >>52623950 ).

>doing help desk work
>user way across town isn't getting her share drive mapped
>ok
>drive over, what's up?
>look on her machine
>she has every drive mapped
>a drive, b drive, c drive, etc. etc.

This is the only time I've been even slightly annoyed at the drive system.

>>52624398
>I'd rather have a toaster with no software at all.

Is the internet of things thing ever going to work?
I have the dumbest devices known to manking an I don't feel the need to upgrade.

>>52624114
>This was for files larger than 4GB (because again, windows sucks).

That was a file system limitation

>>52624394
>to do drive
What the fuck is wrong with me today...

I much prefer the Unix and Unix-like system of mount points over arbitrary letters. Mounting by UUID in fstab is also quite useful.

Also, what >>52623820 said.

>>52624436
just about everything

>>52624466
Epic trolling

File: nexus 6 equals toaster.jpg (179KB, 1595x590px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1595x590px

>>52624398
Today I learned a Nexus 6 is a bread toaster.
Modern technology sure is something else.

>>52624431
And who designed the filesystem? Bell Labs?
Nope. Microsoft designed it for MS-DOS and Windows.

>>52624436
It's ok anon, no one judges you, because no one cares.

>>52624399
WHO CARES

I don't want to run linux on an Amiga. If I had an Amiga, I would want to run Amiga software. Back in the early 90s, when there were a dozen stupid competing risc architectures, portability was important. Now that there are exactly two relevant architectures, WHO CARES.

>>52623769
>he thinks it begins at C

>>52624393
>On the other hand linux on the desktop is utter shit.
>"it isn't windows so I hate it"

>>52624505
Pretty sure most companies that manufacture embedded electronics care.

You ignored all the other platforms (some of which are current) that it supports, and went after Amiga.

>>52624515
>I'm 1337
>I don't know the history of OSes

>>52624515
>because I can read minds and no One can hate comunism, er ,linux

>>52622966
It is because early programmers were musically inspired, and C is both the most prolific language and the standard music key.

>>52624505
>He thinks there are only 2 relevant architectures
You clearly have never worked for a government or multinational corporation.

>>52624532
I'm the one who posted the newsgroup post from torvalds, you tool.

>>52622976
>In theory the Linux system is better but having to find a place to mount is annoying.

>>52623082
>When do you have to find a place? I always either want it in a specific place and so mount it there, or just use /mnt/foo.

Linux has two places:

1: If it's removable media that Linux auto-mounts (like inserting a USB flash drive, for example), then it goes under the /media directory.

2: If the user adds it permanently to the system (like adding a new hard disk, for example), then the /mnt directory is suggested as a place to mount it under. You're not required to use /mnt, but it's provided as a standard and convenient place if you just want a place to put something and you don't really care too much where it goes.

I like to put network-mounted drives under /mnt also. That way, I know that everything is under /mnt or /media.

If in doubt, then use the "lsblk" command to list all your disk devices. For more info, use "sudo lshw -short", and look at all the "disk" and "volume" entries.

>>52624547
>Thinks history of OSes means history of Linux/Unix

>>52622966
>hard drives were invented later
No, hard drives GOT CHEAP later.

They had already existed for decades.

>>52624540
>C
>standard key of music
Almost all shit is made in D, E, A or other keys with open stings in violin/guitar

>>52624571
implying those are the only instruments, pianos and plenty of stuff on guitars are wrote in C

File: some stuff.jpg (2MB, 4608x3457px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4608x3457px

>>52624557
I happen to know PC-DOS version 1 did not even support directories. That's how much it sucked. Also, I happen to own and use as a hobbyist a Mac Plus, a Commodore VIC-20 (I write 6502 assembly for it), and a C64 (currently repairing it).
Just because I mention one thing doesn't mean I am totally ignorant of everything else.
What a cunt.

Here's some of that stuff.

File: 1453766564458.png (2KB, 252x252px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 252x252px

>>52622921

>>52624618
You are proving my point

>>52624618
nice knex

>>52622921
nope only 26 possible

>>52623616
>unlike unix users, windows users are not paralyzed with consideration for what people did 25 years ago.
I think you've got that the wrong way round.

Unix does do many things much the same as 25 years ago because it's still a good approach. Windows still does things the same as 25 years ago because poorly written software that no-one can or will fix but is relied heavily upon breaks horribly when any changes are attempted.

>>52624613
And also in other keys.
The comparison doesn't make sense. If you want to talk about a "standard" in music is the classical-romantical harmony system.
Keys are much irrelevant, we only have two modes in that system really.

>>52624500
Im sorry software over time started to have limitations in the modern world?

They moved on from FAT32, to NTFS.

File: catch-22.png (401KB, 262x2683px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 262x2683px

>>52624618
>claiming I only know unix/linux history
>I prove otherwise
>I'm proving your point by disproving your point

Yes, I'm aware this came from part of an anti-linux comic.

>>52624652
You know that both cases are the answer to both platforms, right?

>>52624652
>Unix does do many things much the same as 25 years ago because it's still a good approach.

Unixfags everyone.

>>52624671
You know that there were OSes before 1980, right?

>>52624695
Yes, because adding builtin advertisements and spying on useds (Windows 10) is a good thing.

>>52624652
No, unix does everything the same because unix users are crazy idiots who have codified design decisions made do to the limitations of 70s minicomputers and teleprinters into a "unix philosophy" that has stifled operating system development for the last quarter century.

>>52624763
Unixfags, gentlemen.

>>52624763
>Botnet botnet botnet
>I WIN

Debate like a real man

>>52624781
Do you not know what sarcasm is, baitman?

File: linux support.png (240KB, 740x5583px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 740x5583px

>>52624670
Oh, hey, it's you from the /flt/ threads.
Pre-emptive post


Also, on removable media they replaced FAT32 with a proprietary and patent-protected filesystem called exFAT (which they pressured into the standard for SDXC cards).

Run anything but windows? Good fucking luck.

>>52624695
There are plenty of things that have changed, and are different between different Unix implementations. There's very little that's exactly the same as 25 years ago, and that which is the same doesn't have glaring problems the way Windows does.

>>52624777
>No, unix does everything the same because unix users are crazy idiots who have codified design decisions made do to the limitations of 70s minicomputers and teleprinters into a "unix philosophy" that has stifled operating system development for the last quarter century.

They don't get it.
They never will.
They don't know history.
It's useless.

>>52624796
What is there to debate, even? The only thing Windows has going for it is application support and even that is dwindling.

>>52624711
You are aware initial work on UNIX was done in 1969, right?
In other words, yes I am.

I believe GE had an OS then, too, though I am too lazy to look it up and pretend I already knew.

>>52624805
In a medium who lacks more than half components of communication between humans?
No. Everyone is an Aspie on internet.

File: lunix.png (295KB, 771x1875px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 771x1875px

>>52624808
>Oh, hey, it's you from the /flt/ threads.
>Pre-emptive post

Havent been on a /flt/ in awhile...
Pulling out dank memes when im not even ready....

Just format the drive to ext4, problem solved.

>>52624826
>Unix does do many things much the same as 25 years ago because it's still a good approach.

>There's very little that's exactly the same as 25 years ago

Just make up yourr mind

>>52624831
>I believe GE had an OS then,

Dig deeper, that's the right direction

>>52624777
Which is why Unix had multiprocessor support before Windows did, support for more RAM than Windows, support for larger hard drives and larger filesystems than Windows, multiuser support before Windows, file permissions before Windows...

>>52624831
Decided to look it up anyway, it did indeed exist. It was called GCOS. I KNEW honeywell rang a bell (they ended up owning it).

>>52624826
Your arguments aren't good.
I despise windows but saying there are problems without specifying is making our argument easier to dismiss.

>>52624891
Wasn't going to claim it was the first, just that it was a contemporary one that was around before UNIX.

>>52624869
You are aware of the difference between "much the same" and "exactly the same", right? Just in case you're not, I'll spell it out for you.

Much the same means that there's a lot in common, but with some differences. Sometimes subtle, sometimes major but with elements of the original still clearly recognisable.

Exactly the same means absolutely no changes.

>>52623061
Fucking this, how dumb can you be?

>>52624915
>comparing apples with lettuces

>>52624943
>Your arguments aren't good.
>I despise windows but saying there are problems without specifying is making our argument easier to dismiss.
Fair enough, but it's a public holiday today so I'm feeling a bit lazy.

File: 3161-3.jpg (3MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4608x3456px

>>52624915
>unix users are crazy idiots who have codified design decisions made do to the limitations of 70s minicomputers and teleprinters into a "unix philosophy" that has stifled operating system development for the last quarter century.
See also:
* Microsoft BASIC
* MS-DOS
* 640k ought to be enough for anybody [debateable sources]
* modern PC's still containing an internal ISA bus architecture
* the x86 architecture being a horribly inefficient one compared to RISC alternatives (if Intel had invested in improving those, we would be on a whole other level)
* MS-DOS 6.22 being listed as a current (non-retired) microsoft product and still being available for licensing to companies and students
* the FAT32 filesystem is still not fucking dead
yeah, it's only the unix'ers who hold onto legacy stuff without cause.

>>52624987
>You are aware of the difference between "much the same" and "exactly the same", right? Just in case you're not, I'll spell it out for you.

Sorry I'm lost in the finer point of the English language, I'm not a native speaker.

>>52625048
Average quality bait

>>52624625
Not this shit again

>>52625048
>640k ought to be enough for anybody [debateable sources]
There is still people who believe that Gates said that?

>>52624915
Multiuser support and file permissions are part of what sucks about unix, and introducing them to windows made it worse.

>>52625078
Someone, either at IBM or microsoft, said it at one point. Of that we can be certain.

Note that I never attributed it to gates.

>>52625048
>the problem with all enginners is they're too lazy

>>52625083
>I want an even less secured botnet OS where I can delete system32 without it warning me

>>52625048
>* MS-DOS 6.22 being listed as a current (non-retired) microsoft product and still being available for licensing to companies and students
Sauce?

>>52625086
I'm not talking specifically about you, but I always find someone who still believes that Gates said that.

>>52625113
>adding multics ideas to a system designed from start to NOT be multics

>>52625169
>multics
The elephant in the room.

>>52625083
>Multiuser support and file permissions are part of what sucks about unix
How so? I'm seriously not seeing how multiple different people being able to use a system and have their own seperate preferences and data that other users cannot access is a bad thing.
>and introducing them to windows made it worse.
Any problems it introduced are largely down to the shitty way Windows implemented it, and shitty software not handling it well because DOS/Windows had been single user up until that point. And even with that, I'd still rather Windows with multiuser and file permissions than without.

>>52625048
>the x86 architecture being a horribly inefficient one compared to RISC alternatives
It's not the fucking 90s anymore, genius. x86 is as good or better than any RISC alternative. It basically is a RISC architecture at this point.

And the difference between unix and windows in regard to holding on to old shit is that nobody justifies it with a fucking "windows philosophy". Everybody understands that windows does what it does because of practical reasons like backwards compatibility. Unix users on the other hand glory in the idea that 200 years from now, people might still be using an operating system designed in the 1970s. Unix users love the idea that unix is the best there ever was and ever could be and we should never hope for anything better because unix is so fucking perfect.

That's why I tolerate windows, and despise unix.

>>52625221
>That's why I tolerate windows, and despise unix.

Does any professor of CS use Windows?
I think it would be a carrier suicide for them.
Stupid UNIX priesthood.

>>52625119
Go to dreamspark
DOS 6.22 is available.
I was an RIT student up to a couple weeks ago and I downloaded MS-DOS 6.22 from them.

>>52625119
Did some more research.
It IS available to download from M$. However, it unsupported as 2001.

>>52625254
Only CS professors paid to teach .NET by Microsoft (or the university/school that was paid my Microsoft). No one actually wants to teach it.

Technically, since you can still make DOS (8.0 or something) boot flash drives or floppies in current windows versions, DOS is still supported as a component of windows.

>>52625207
>How so? I'm seriously not seeing how multiple different people being able to use a system and have their own seperate preferences and data that other users cannot access is a bad thing.
PCs are personal computers and designing them to be multi-user when 90% of them are only ever going to be used by one person at a time is asinine.

Unix was designed to be run on a university property computer administered by a single person and accessed by many users who shouldn't ever configure the system. A PC is used by one person who has to configure the system himself on a near daily basis.

How does a multiuser operating system deal with this situation? Give the user the option to assume the privileges of a "higher" user temporarily. What a shitty solution.

But that's the way unix does it, so it must be the correct way, surely.

>>52625302
>No one actually wants to teach it.

Teach what?

>>52625328
>implying you didn't grow up sharing a computer with family members at any point
Must be nice living in the gated communities.

>>52625353
>>implying you didn't grow up sharing a computer with family members at any point

Before Xp every person had his own computer?
Who knew.

>>52625328
>Unix was designed to be run on a university property computer
WRONG.
It was designed for PDP-11 'minicomputers', which were used in corporate environments as well as universities. And it was written in C, meaning that it could also be run on IBM System/370's, which were definitely NOT common university machines.

>>52625353
And it was never a problem when it was a DOS computer and we didn't have separate accounts.

>>52625374
Again not knowing history

>>52625369
Before XP no 8 year old ever deleted system32 or other essential windows components? Who knew.

>>52625387
>Before XP no 8 year old ever deleted system32 or other essential windows components? Who knew.

rm -rf /

>>52623064
>In the early 80s there were expansion chassis with more floppy drives, which meant that some people had floppy drives C: and D:.
Nah, not on DOS systems. The Shugart controller that shipped with the 5150/XT could theoretically address four, but in practice only supported two. I don't think you could support additional controllers either.

http://www.seasip.info/VintagePC/floppies.html

>>52625406
You told an 8 year old the root password?
What on earth were you thinking?!

>>52625406
But no, you have to type sudo first, that's what makes it so secure.

File: preface-the-C-programming-language-1st-edition.png (435KB, 1593x2001px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1593x2001px

>>52625383
>Again not knowing history
For fuck's sake, I took that straight from the first edition of Kernighan & Ritchie's "The C Programming Language."

>>52625221
As far as reasoning for hanging on to old ways of doing things, something of a fair point. But for everything else, I'd still rather the Unix way. The attachment to a "Unix philosophy" is as much a practical concern as it is a philosophical one, in that different implementations of Unix from different vendors need to all work in more-or-less the same way in order for software written for one to easily port to the others. For there to be any point in using the same kind of system, basically.
But Windows? Everything's down to the whims of one company that constantly has parts of it fighting with other parts of it, and so little regard for what its users actually want it's a miracle any of its users can get anything done.

Ultimately, both suck. They just suck in different ways, and which one sucks more is usually down to what priorities you have.

>>52625442
Maybe it's not a good thing that you can delete the entire hard drive with a single command in ANY case.

But, no, that's the way unix does it, so it must be the correct way.

>>52625447
it does if the user isn't in a sudoers file or you don't tell your 8 year old the root password.

You can log into a modern windows OS as the 'SYSTEM' user (not "Administrator, I mean "SYSTEM") and destroy everything with even greater ease.

>>52625481
windows does this.
rd /s /q \ (or "<letter>:\")

>>52625468
>For fuck's sake, I took that straight from the first edition of Kernighan & Ritchie's "The C Programming Language."

That's the official history from the priesthood.
Read about B and BCPL for a more comprehensive view.
Again, not knowing history.

>>52625221
>x86 is essentially RISC
you don't know what RISC stands for, do you?

The x86 instruction set didn't suddenly decide to lop off 50 instructions, last I checked.

>>52625491
But you can go into administrator and at least do some things, while not being totally destructive.

Unlike in unix, where there are two permission levels:
>unable to do anything
>able to do everything

>>52625524
It is RISC iternally. Or so they say.

>>52625521
why don't you post it if you're so clever?

You're one-upping me on the age of a thing, without actually answering as to why I'm wrong or why your mentioning B is worthwhile.
No version of UNIX written in B was ever put through a System/370 B compiler, if one of those ever existed.

>>52625538
Who says?

The datasheets sure don't.
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/datasheets/4th-gen-core-family-desktop-vol-1-datasheet.pdf

>>52625530
There are such things as permissions other than 000 and 777, you know. (Not including the 'sticky' bit)

>>52625550
Google is your friend

>>52625576
https://www.google.it/search?q=x86+is+risc+internally&oq=x86+is+risc+internally&aqs=chrome..69i57.5954j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

>>52625583
googled: "system/370 B compiler" without quotes.
Nothing.

>>52625602
That doesn't make it a RISC system unless you can program it with those RISC instructions.
It makes it a highly optimized x86 with a new technology being used for part of the calculations. It still goes through a ton of translation to and from x86 in between.

>>52625607
Who said anything about a system/370 B compiler?
Read about B and BCPL history. That's all.

>>52625642
I've done that already (before today), but it's irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

Then you come along, see me talking about C, and decide you can one-up me with something older by mentioning B to increase your 'cred'.

>>52625628
>That doesn't make it a RISC system unless you can program it with those RISC instructions.

RISC internally

INTERNALLY

>>52625374
>IBM System/370's, which were definitely NOT common university machines.
what???
S/360s, S/370s and similar IBM mainframes and compatibles were very common in academia, hell I've got a stack of 3278 terminals in my garage with my university's '80s logo burned into the damn displays

>>52625447
>has never configured a soduers file

File: ss+(2015-12-04+at+07.59.20).png (29KB, 1145x239px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1145x239px

>>52623671
>Windows 10 doesn't even support floppy drives anymore
Who told you that?

>>52625676
I'm aware of MITS and all of those things.
It's not the OS of choice that became remembered and a legacy. People tended to hate IBM mainframes with a passion.

I've just got an IBM 3196 terminal here, in the way of system/370 components. Also got a single IBM 3161 RS-232 ASCII terminal that still works to this day on linux/unix machines.

>>52625716
ah, okay. I heard that before it was released, must've been rumor mongering.

>>52625722
of course, it was mostly back-end shit for things like student management, but IBM mainframes were and still are quite common, there's a reason "IBM" and "mainframe" were synonymous.

>>52624808
Just avoid those problems and use windows. This basically says linux:90% windows functionality

>>52625759
yep, and it had a lot to do with movie placement.
(see: dr. strangelove)

>>52625749
I heard the opposite myself, I recall seeing the developer previews even had new icons made for 5.25'' disks.

>>52625767
and the 10% it doesn't support has alternatives that work and aren't going to get you sued by rabid microsoft lawyers for infringing some bullshit software patent.

I'm the one who wrote that btw.

>>52622921
Internally, Windows doesn't use it. I was surprised when tried writing pure winapi code. Paths start with \\?\GLOBALROOT

>>52625778
I'm not certain it can tell the difference between 3.5" and 5.25" drives.

I don't even have any 5.25" drives besides my commodore 1541 anymore, sadly, so I can't check.

>>52625661
>It was designed for PDP-11 'minicomputers', which were used in corporate environments as well as universities. And it was written in C, meaning that it could also be run on IBM System/370's, which were definitely NOT common university machines.

Oh found it http://sites.harvard.edu/~lib113/reference/c/c_history.html

don't be fooled by the title, it cover b too

>>52625803
I tried rigging one in my workstation to check it out but I couldn't find a molex adapter. I'd think it would though, as long as your BIOS could, unless someone at Microsoft had a sperg attack and removed that section of the operating system while they were gutting the NTDVM. Which I guess I really wouldn't put past them.

>>52625855
>can't trust microsoft to not ruin things that already work
>i.e. metro, forced windows updates that can't be disabled, adverts, spyware
Main reason to use linux: trust.

>>52625328
>PCs are personal computers and designing them to be multi-user when 90% of them are only ever going to be used by one person at a time is asinine.
The dichotomy of "personal computer equals only one user ever, multiuser equals mainframe/server at a company or school" isn't really true. Hasn't been for quite some time, if it ever really was true. What we call a personal computer was, for the entirety of the 80s and most of the 90s, more typically a household computer. They were cheap enough that people could afford to have one in the house, but not so cheap that every member of the household could have their own. Multiple user accounts and file permissions really should have been implemented in "personal computers" back then.

Also, when you say multiuser, do you mean simultaneous multiuser? If so, sure, a lot of the time any given PC is only going to have one person interacting with it at any given moment. But as I said, for most of the time the PC has been a thing, their use has been shared.

And as I also said, the PC/server dichotomy hasn't really been true for a long time. When my family finally got a second PC, we networked the two of them together. Set up file sharing so we could access our documents on Computer A when we were using Computer B. Set up internet connection sharing. The line between PC and server blurred. Later, when Windows implemented things like fast user switching, we no longer needed to stop a task in order to let someone else log on to do something with that PC.

To say "multiuser and file permissions are dumb because PERSONAL computer" is stupid and short-sighted. They've always been necessary, they just haven't always been there.

>>52625815
alright, I still don't see how that's relevant to my point about unix not being designed at or for a university setting specifically.

>>52625524
Mainstream x86 chips since the Nx586, AMD-K5 and Pentium Pro are "internally" RISC, instructions are interpreted and broken up into smaller "micro-ops" within the processor, and these micro-ops are not documented or user-accessible.

x86 truly is an abomination without measure.

>>52625914
>trusting software ever
Hope you never get know some based compiler attacks.

>>52625930
>designed
I wouldn't use that word

File: win816bit.png (26KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1024x768px

>>52625914
IA-32 versions of Windows NT still put up no fuss with any well-behaved software you feed it, it's just 64-bit versions that are gimped for reasons I can't recall, I think some bullshit about performance.

>>52625993
Try running fullscreen sim city 2000 in vista or higher.

>>52626103
Note how I said "well-behaved" software. Games are a different story, because most of them are shitty, insecure hacks making use of kludges that NT nipped in the bud from the beginning.

In fact, modern NT iterations are far more compatible than NT 3.1-4.0 ever could have hoped to be.

>>52626103
>well-behaved software
>games
pick one

>>52622976
>make 26 folder A-Z in /mnt
>...
>PROFIT!!!

>>52626103
>sim city 2000
run it in dosbox

>>52626734
Or admit that modern windows isn't perfect. Either one. I was trying to prove a point, not actually play sim city.
>>52625958
I love preprocessor hacks.

>>52623671
I had trouble with software and drivers that hard coded their install path to be in the C:/ drive

>>52627185
exactly. it encourages hardcoding - something nearly unheard of in the linux world because you have to assume that no two installations are identical. It creates more flexible code.

>>52627246
fuck you autoconf developer

>>52624384

Wow thank you for this relevant information ! I can see now why this is a bad system, I will now use UNIX for all my floppy disk needs :^)

>>52625786
K? Linux offers nothing better to the general user so they use w.indows, same as the blond that uses osx cause windows offers nothing she needs

>>52622921
No, it's retarded.
Mounting devices on arbitrary directories in the filesystem tree is a much better idea.

>>52622976
That's why I

sudo mkdir /mnt/mnt{0..9}

when installing a new OS.

Drive letters are more friendly, which naturally means that Linux doesn't have them

>>52625993
x64 versions of Windows don't support 16 bit applications, whereas x86 versions do

File: Screen Shot 2016-01-26 at 12.10.22.png (1MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1200px

>>52622921
ZOZZLIN'

>>52623039
This meme!

>>52630830
>luser
everytime :^)

What happens if you run out of characters ?

File: EB5xA.png (89KB, 813x569px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 813x569px

>>52633362

in windows nothing , you can't mount any more
adding any new device won't show up

in linux it goes from sda to sdz , then continues sdaa,sdab etc

>>52622921
I just label my drives.
Literally e2label /dev/something "OP is a fag".

>>52622976
you could mount things to /D, /E, /F, etc if you really wanted to

File: a.png (4KB, 301x44px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 301x44px

>>52623906

>>52623984
and yet you still opened this thread...

>>52633287
LISTEN HERE SIR< I NEED U TO REFRAIN FROM POINTING THAT OUT DUE TO OP SEC INHIBITION

>>52622921
who else used to edit installation disks (win95/98 era) to make the primary drive not C:\ and $windows_dir not C:\WINDOWS? good times...

>>52622921
>dd'd my Windows 7 partition to another partition
>upgraded original to Windows 10
>boot back to dd'd Windows 7
>Windows recognized 10 as C:\ and 7 as D:\
>explorer.exe wouldnt launch; could only open task manager, cmd, and disk management
>had to go into Windows 10, remove D:\ as a drive letter, and

bcdedit /set {default} device partition=\device\HarddiskDrive3

>Windows 7 works now

I hate drive letters; fuck Microsoft

>>52622921
When you use drive letters, you have a limited number of alphabets, so you only have like 20 choices for your drives. This can be a limitation, even if not commonly encountered.

>>52623940
>>52624076
But I use several multipartitioned USB aand hard drives and they all work fine in Windows

Granted, most of the problems come from Windows usually needing an MBR schemed drive (at least for booting Windows), but that's where gptfdisk's hybrid MBR comes in

> ITT idiots who think only Linux has devices and custom mounting

You do know a windows HDD is located at /device/HardDiskVolume0 in kernel, it is then mapped to a drive letter for the non-kernel devs and normies for ease of use.

>>52624309
>Wow hey guys our shitty kernel made with the same architecture as a shitty 1980's research system can be compiled to run on ANYTHING
>Doesn't this make you want to use it???

When I have free time I will download the TempleOS source and rip it apart and rewrite it to have less arbitrary limits and be less resource intensive than RISCOS as it should be.

Then we'll see who's laughing linuxfags.

/dev/sda
/dev/sda1
/dev/sda2
/dev/sdb
/dev/sdb1
...

Yes i like drive letters!
Yes i like numbered partitions.