[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No to StowFS!
From: |
Gianluca Guida |
Subject: |
Re: No to StowFS! |
Date: |
Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:29:03 +0100 |
Hi.
On 2/5/06, Leonardo Pereira <leonardolopespereira@gmail.com> wrote:
> StowFS doesn't create links, it uses unionfs. The difference of both is
> almost simple, since with links you can remove stow and everything will keep
> working. With StowFS you need to have stowfs running to get things working
> (this "curiously" create a bootstrap problem
You can start being ironic on other people's work just _AFTER_ you get
some code running and proving you're right.
Thanks,
Gianluca
--
It was a type of people I did not know, I found them very strange and
they did not inspire confidence at all. Later I learned that I had been
introduced to electronic engineers.
E. W. Dijkstra
- Re: No to StowFS!, (continued)
- Re: No to StowFS!, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2006/02/08
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/07
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!, Michael Heath, 2006/02/04
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!, Filip Brcic, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Gianluca Guida, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Leonardo Pereira, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!,
Gianluca Guida <=
- Re: No to StowFS!, olafBuddenhagen, 2006/02/08
- Re: No to StowFS!, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2006/02/08
- Re: No to StowFS!, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2006/02/08
- Message not available
- Re: No to StowFS!, Gianluca Guida, 2006/02/03