Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hmm. Lets step back here, and take a deep breath. What we need > to consider is whether the underlying principle is desirable -- does > it make sense to have two separate path components? The rationale was > that for the common user, there are programs that are not used very > often, and may not even work when invoked, and thus tend to only > confuse the uninitiated, and annoy enerally by messing up command > comletion. > > The question that seems to want to be raised is whether this > is true? Are people really confused more by having extra commands > available, or are they confused by _not_ havingcertain commands > present?
Sounds fine to me. > The irony is, of course, that the people generally making such > decisions (like this forum) are rarely a decent sampling of the user > base, or the hypothetical Joe user. Maybe we should ask our users then? > As to mount telling us what is mounted, so does df, and cat > /etc/mtab. again, not enough to move mount; unless one is being > contrary. I dont follow this. 'echo *' can tell me what files are in a directory; a system without ls in path is still broken. I don't see how mount is much different. Regular users *often* want to mount/unmount/check mount status of removable media. And it's in /bin now, so isn't this a red herring anyway? -- see shy jo
