Windows 10 - free upgrade to those with PC using Windows 7 or 8

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Glorfindel

Truely said, it makes much more sense to stick them in a crypticly named directory formed by removing the vowels from the word 'mount,' (Everyone knows what mount means, right?) with easily understood names like sda1 and sdc5. I'll wager that even the least among the Technically Unsavvy will pick that right up...
Sarcasm aside, drive letters are much easier to grasp for the average nontechnical user, which I think you will agree makes up the majority of the Windows user base.

Do you mean /dev where block devices go, not filesystems? Or /mnt where by convention users manually mount their block devices to manually chosen, user-specific meaningful names?

Me, I was referring to the standards-based /media/{label}

Regardless, GUI users have no beef in the matter -- they use the file browser bookmarks on the side.
On Windows, Linux and OSX.



Someone is confused...

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Do you mean /dev where block devices go, not filesystems? Or /mnt where by convention users manually mount their block devices to manually chosen, user-specific meaningful names?

That varies greatly between distributions. Some mount in the manner that you specified, others don't. I know of exactly zero that make their users manually name the mount points. Now, I've not used every distro out there, but I have used several over the last few years.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Me, I was referring to the standards-based /media/{label}

See above regarding distribution variation.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Regardless, GUI users have no beef in the matter -- they use the file browser bookmarks on the side.
On Windows, Linux and OSX.

Some file managers do and some don't. Windows' does, but at the same time, Windows doesn't use the Linux naming scheme.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Someone is confused...

Don't be so hard on yourself.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Glorfindel

That varies greatly between distributions. Some mount in the manner that you specified, others don't. I know of exactly zero that make their users manually name the mount points. Now, I've not used every distro out there, but I have used several over the last few years.

Linux being linux, there are dedicated programs for automounting, and they default to the standards-based /media -- nevertheless you can always manually use the mount command. The /mnt folder is typically used that way, and the standards list it as a place for keeping always-mounted drives on an ongoing (permanent) basis IIRC. In casual use you won't even see that folder to begin with.

I NEVER said there are distros that force you to manually mount. However, my fstab, by personal choice, mounts the Windows partition read-only there.

I do however use ArchLinux so I had to manually install an automount daemon. Most distros, including every single one a non-cli-user would install, bundle those. The heavyweight DEs bake it in.

See above regarding distribution variation.

Have you ever heard of freedesktop standards?
The word "standards" should be a clue, anyway...

Some file managers do and some don't. Windows' does, but at the same time, Windows doesn't use the Linux naming scheme.

Again, every popular file browser likely to be used by a non-cli-user does. Because it is a freaking obvious idea and it is mentally retarded not to.

But since we are all agreed that Windows does do that, what is your problem? Are you just being argumentative? (Don't answer that, just see below.)




Thank you for responding. You have confirmed my belief that you are being wilfully disingenuous.

Originally Posted by Glorfindel

Truely said, it makes much more sense to stick them in a crypticly named directory formed by removing the vowels from the word 'mount,' (Everyone knows what mount means, right?) with easily understood names like sda1 and sdc5. I'll wager that even the least among the Technically Unsavvy will pick that right up...

Which distribution does that? I have seen, indeed used, such shorthands on systems where the drives were manually mounted or were configured as such by an administrator in /etc/fstab. I have only encountered /media/{disk_label} or /media/{user_name}/{disk_label} in current distributions designed for the "Technically Unsavvy".

Sarcasm aside, drive letters are much easier to grasp for the average nontechnical user, which I think you will agree makes up the majority of the Windows user base.

Uh, no. Disks are much easier to grasp. Drive letters are a legacy of the MS-DOS era, when it was more convenient to refer to the drive. That was especially true since drives could not detect when a disk was inserted or removed. The only way to use a disk by a volume label was to poll every drive each time it was referred to. Macs of the era were able to detect when a disk was inserted and removed, so they could (and did) use the disk label.

Besides, drive letters don't make much sense these days. Unlike older systems, where the media was inserted or removed while the drives remained fixed, removing the disk usually involves removing the drive. (The main exception being SD cards on systems with an internal SD slot.)

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Linux being linux, there are dedicated programs for automounting, and they default to the standards-based /media -- nevertheless you can always manually use the mount command. The /mnt folder is typically used that way, and the standards list it as a place for keeping always-mounted drives on an ongoing (permanent) basis IIRC. In casual use you won't even see that folder to begin with.

I NEVER said there are distros that force you to manually mount. However, my fstab, by personal choice, mounts the Windows partition read-only there.

I do however use ArchLinux so I had to manually install an automount daemon. Most distros, including every single one a non-cli-user would install, bundle those. The heavyweight DEs bake it in.


Have you ever heard of freedesktop standards?
The word "standards" should be a clue, anyway...



Again, every popular file browser likely to be used by a non-cli-user does. Because it is a freaking obvious idea and it is mentally retarded not to.

But since we are all agreed that Windows does do that, what is your problem? Are you just being argumentative? (Don't answer that, just see below.)




Thank you for responding. You have confirmed my belief that you are being wilfully disingenuous.

When you are ready and willing to debate the issues rather than insulting someone who doesn't agree with you, I will possibly reply to your posts.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Which distribution does that? I have seen, indeed used, such shorthands on systems where the drives were manually mounted or were configured as such by an administrator in /etc/fstab. I have only encountered /media/{disk_label} or /media/{user_name}/{disk_label} in current distributions designed for the "Technically Unsavvy".

I haven't used them recently, but the one that I use does not do that.

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Uh, no. Disks are much easier to grasp. Drive letters are a legacy of the MS-DOS era, when it was more convenient to refer to the drive. That was especially true since drives could not detect when a disk was inserted or removed. The only way to use a disk by a volume label was to poll every drive each time it was referred to. Macs of the era were able to detect when a disk was inserted and removed, so they could (and did) use the disk label.

Besides, drive letters don't make much sense these days. Unlike older systems, where the media was inserted or removed while the drives remained fixed, removing the disk usually involves removing the drive. (The main exception being SD cards on systems with an internal SD slot.)

I'm not arguing about the drive letters, I'm arguing that drive letters are easier to understand than having sda1's in two different folders. I have yet to meet a person who didn't understand drive letters.

[eschwartz]

I will be more than happy to listen to anything you say which has a factual basis.

Suggesting that linux uses sdxX-style mountpoints is embarrassingly wrong and literally requires just booting up any modern popular distro and using it for a bit.
(And is still irrelevant to the point of whether or not MS should switch to labeled mountpoints rather than randomizing drive letters.)

As for your distro without the labeled drives, which distro? Haven't you mentioned puppy linux before, which is emphatically not what a techno-unsavvy user is likely to install?
Try looking at e.g. the *buntus. Or anything that has e.g. Gnome, MATE, Unity, KDE, or Cinnamon installed as a DE -- because as I said, automounting is a baked-in feature. And they all use freedesktop standards.

Originally Posted by Glorfindel

I haven't used them recently, but the one that I use does not do that.

Things change, and it is important to recognize that. To give you an idea of what I mean, consider those Linux enthusiasts who criticize Windows based upon the last time they used it. These days, they may be pointing out faults that were fixed in earlier releases of Windows. (Consider security, which was addressed in Vista and XP service packs. Consider stability, which was addressed in consumer releases with XP.) It is also important to differentiate distributions, since different distributions are intended for different users and it is all too easy to point the finger at the wrong people. Windows doesn't have the problem to the same degree, but it still exists. Is it any more proper to blame Microsoft for poor drivers from independent vendors or computer manufacturers for loading their products with junk than it is to blame desktop user oriented Linux distributions for practices common for features implemented in (and only in) developer or server oriented distributions?

I'm not arguing about the drive letters, I'm arguing that drive letters are easier to understand than having sda1's in two different folders. I have yet to meet a person who didn't understand drive letters.

Possibly. Yet also keep in mind that those users have been acclimated to drive letters for over 30 years. It is difficult to establish what is better without prejudice under such circumstances.

[wodin]

Would it be too much to ask that you take all the Linux stuff to a Linux thread and leave this Windows 10 thread for Windows 10 stuff? I'll even start a thread for it here.

[eschwartz]

I simply said:

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I don't want A and B drives back, I want drives gone period. I want predictable drive names based on filesystem labels, which I can use for scripting. Without having to setup each computer ahead of time.

Seems rather on topic to me. Yes, I was influenced by linux, but that's life, get used to it -- OSes influence each other.
I believe the following critical analysis of the strengths of a linux way of doing things in comparison to the Windows way is a valid form of discussion to have in this thread here.

[theducks]

I use the Windows Tweak Tool to Show the drive letter AFTER the volume name in Explorer.

My pen drives have meaningful volume labels:
Red
White
Blue
Yellow
Because that is their Color.

Eject Red, Pull the Red one

[eschwartz]

Unfortunately, that doesn't actually help in any meaningfully significant way.
Scripts cannot get a visual look at My Computer.

My USB drive has a label and an icon as well. Both show in My Computer, which is very distinguishable.
The data is there, and Windows can see it in some way -- but I'll be darned if I know how to access/duplicate that. I've tried.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Unfortunately, that doesn't actually help in any meaningfully significant way. Scripts cannot get a visual look at My Computer.

I did a quick search for identifying the drive belonging to a volume label in PowerShell, and apparently you can use this:

Get-WMIObject Win32_Volume | ? { $_.Label -eq 'MYLABEL' }

I started with PowerShell since it is much more powerful than batch files. Yet you should be able to do the same thing with batch files using:

for /f %%D in ('wmic volume get DriveLetter^, Label ^| find "yourLabel"') do set usb=%%D

It ain't pretty, but supposedly it gets the job done. (I didn't try these myself since I am under OS X at the moment.)

Originally Posted by wodin

Would it be too much to ask that you take all the Linux stuff to a Linux thread and leave this Windows 10 thread for Windows 10 stuff? I'll even start a thread for it here.

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. As much as some Windows users may like to be sheltered from the existence of Linux, Linux is its competitor and the comparisons are relevant.

Oh, and just to throw another wrench in the works: has anyone else noticed how some of the window management features of OS X 10.11 are derived from Windows (and likely other operating systems)?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Oh, and just to throw another wrench in the works: has anyone else noticed how some of the window management features of OS X 10.11 are derived from Windows (and likely other operating systems)?

What, operating systems being inspired by each other and the users' similar needs? I don't know what you are talking about.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. As much as some Windows users may like to be sheltered from the existence of Linux, Linux is its competitor and the comparisons are relevant.

Beg to differ.
It's not about being sheltered but rather having to wade through pages of irrelevancies and catfights just to get back on topic. In this case Win10 upgrades. Which aren't available for linux systems.

The occasional joke or short sidebar isn't a problem but whole pages?
That really needs to go elsewhere.