No volumes in Linux?
alex at tweedly.net
Wed Sep 7 14:23:11 CDT 2005
Bob Warren wrote:
>Thanks Alex and Ken!
>I have just tried the same thing in RB and Rebol. RB also returns empty.
>Interestingly, Rebol gives a list of the partitions created by Linux - which
>at least is a bit more useful.
Are each of those really separate partitions ? Not simply different
top-level directories ?
>Does this really mean that although a computer may have 2 or 3 physical
>drives, there is no way that RR can discover this in Linux? If so, I find
>that rather disappointing, don't you?
No, I don't really.
Physical disks ?
Even on Win, "the volumes" gives you logical partitions, not physical
disks. (e.g. my C: and D: are on the same disk, and Z: is on another
machine entirely.Sometimes there is also Y: volume - and it's on the
same disk (on the other machine) as Z: ).
On Unix, the mappings between top-level directories, partitions (or
logical volumes as some Unix file systems call them) and physical disks
are even more tenuous (even before we get to automount partitions ....).
What is it that you really want to know ?
Alex Tweedly http://www.tweedly.net
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 05/09/2005
More information about the use-livecode