Why is it called the C drive? Why not the A or B drive?

>Why use only case-insensitive latin alphabet characters as logical storage unit mounting points, thus limiting access to only 26 at once?

no it's because you put CDs in it

Damn i'm getting too old for this shit.

This is why Windows is niggerlicious. Floppy drives are fucking gone, why is it still using this retarded scheme?

That's literally what the D drive is for. Because D comes after C, so you put your CD in your D drive.

>Floppy drives are fucking gone
Zoom zoom

You mean save icons

>Floppy drives are fucking gone, why is it still using this retarded scheme?
The same reason why GNU and BSD still has to deal with UNIX legacy crap... you need to maintain it because of legacy reasons.

>let's just unnecessarily break compatibility with a load of old programs because some user's autism is acting up about two letters lol

26 drives ought to be enough for everybody

UNIX is a philosophy/set of specific design decisions. It isn't legacy until people decide it is. Unlike floppy disks, which aren't used anymore.
Old programs can go fuck themselves. I'm sure Rakesh can find an old version of Windows which supports floppy disks if he needs to use them so badly.

External HDD is listed as e drive.
How did they know that 20years ago?

>Floppy drives are fucking gone, why is it still using this retarded scheme?
sda, sdb, sdc, sdd

name a program ANYONE uses that still needs to recognize A and B as floppy drives and C as a hard drive
because I've never seen one ever even when I used MS DOS

>UNIX is a philosophy
No, it is an old as fuck operating system.

>set of specific design decisions
So are DOSes. I mean, the OS design is literally named "Disk Operating Systems".

Underrated

Windows.

I don't understand zoomer meme arrows.

ive installed windows on D

B&R

>name a program ANYONE uses that still needs to recognize A and B as floppy drives
Windows

You madman. This guy is a madman.

Why is it called sda0 when it's actually my FIRST drive? What kind of retard decided that counting from zero is a good idea?

This.

Except the letters on Linux are just applied to storage devices. On my workstation sda is my boot SSD.

Windows Explorer itself. At work we have lots of older equipment with embedded computers that rely on floppies for things like exporting error logs. These machines aren't networked and they don't have serial ports or USB as far as I've been able to see. So we put the floppies into Windows 7 machines to read them.

sda is your first drive. sda0 is the first partition of sda.

inb4 i wish i had a turbo button

Attached: 831680.jpg (640x480, 55K)

>No, it is an old as fuck operating system.
And it has stayed around because of stability and extensibility, as opposed to narrow-minded proprietary systems that end up being patch on top of patch on top of patch, disguised as OS version 'upgrades'

Why numbers of partitions start from 0?

>not changing c to a

Attached: 1548361437050.jpg (509x438, 29K)

Why the fuck do people think Windows has drive associativity

>Except the letters on Linux are just applied to storage devices.
Your boot drive is always sda, just like boot drives always (used to be) A:

What a moron you are
Starting counting from 1 is very ineffective and wastes memory and CPU registers

Attached: 0cbpdjii3pa11.png (645x729, 105K)

>And it has stayed around because of stability and extensibility,
Lol, no. It stayed around because of arbitrary reasons. UNIX is fucking shit, which is why Linux doesn't try to be UNIX and neither does BSDs. Friendly reminder that according to "the UNIX philosophy" it's perfectly acceptable for a file system to have data loss.

Because mathematics.

Yep

>unix is a philosophy
Unix zealots need to leave.

It doesn't have to be C you can actually assign any letter you want, its available by the environment variable SYSTEMDRIVE or something like that, but if you do change it loads of shit will probably break because most apps hard code C: in their paths.

That's why they leave it C even if there is no A or B anymore because everyone already hardcoded their shit as C and there is no reason to change.

I have literally installed windows on D, G, and possibly other letters with no floppy drives present, what the fuck are you talking about

Because the same reasons that people believes that NT kernel is incapable of delete a file while marked in use and other shit.
Part FUD, Part Microsoft hidding the innards of NT, part Win32 API hidding shit because compatibility.

expensive fixed internal storage was a mistake

>most apps hard code C: in their paths.
they dont

Unix is great, you fucking nigger. There's no good reason for software to not be portable across *nix platforms. I use Linux, BSD, and Solaris and I sometimes port old scientific software so I take advantage of POSIX and stuff.

You'd be surprised, change your C drive to another letter and you'll see. A ton of shit is just hardcoded on windows because the APIs suck or are just broken, and most people don't change stuff like their system drive letter.

Try renaming your hard drive to A:

>Unix is great, you fucking nigger.
Go suck on Rob Pike. It's not great, and it's proprietary shit.

>There's no good reason for software to not be portable across *nix platforms.
You can do this without being UNIX, this is literally what BSD and GNU does.

>Solaris
Proprietary shit.

It's because C is the third letter of the alphabet. 3 is half of 6. 6 three times is 666. 666 is the mark of the beast. Microsoft is literally the devil confirmed!

Attached: akm4VQdk_700w_0.jpg (326x294, 17K)

>apps hardcoding C: in their path
The last one I saw doing that was a 1994 game that also didn't have support for Y2k.
I bet you played, is Mathblaster, in search of spot.
Microsoft probably discourages hard coding paths, instead recommends use enviroment variables.

I have
Barely any application is hardcoded to use C, that's fucking ridiculous
I swear this thread is full of people pulling assumptions out of their ass

Yeah, but no. Data loss is unacceptable for any OS, and an OS has to be evolutionalry in order to deal with and embrace new technology. The UNIX philosophy carried over to linux and BSD and development in those areas reflects that. MS has marched to the beat of its own drummer for many years and is only now (day late and a dollar short) of trying to get a foothold in the linux arena. (I don't say 'linux market' because anyone that is shilling a linux market is an idiot and doesn't understand the concept of open source)

>boo hoo muh proprietary
Ligma dick, sugma balls

Attached: BigChungusMeme.jpg (2000x1000, 123K)

I'm sure it would break if I renamed it without reinstalling the OS because programs often fix their path on install, they don't assume your drive letter though

>Windows sucks because it's arbitrary and proprietary
>Unix is great because it's arbitrary and proprietary
Really makes you think.

fixed absolute paths?
this sounds like a job for arcane japware!

>unix is great
No, it wasn't great in their prime.
Literally was built on justifications and justifications about not implementing shit, calling it a "philosophy" and ranting how multics sucked and died before it was ready
(Hint: Multics was sucessfully completed and they had productions systems)
The only advantage of UNIX is that is easy as fuck to reimplement. That's why it spread like crazy. Everyone could made their implementation and it worked. Worked like ass, but worked.
If unix was really great then it wouldn't try to implement every shit that multics and vms already had.

This

Windows won't even boot if you change the system drive. Windows 10 at least.

>Data loss is unacceptable for any OS,
Not according to POSIX.

you may not be able to change it after installation but you can install it anywhere

So you can deal with it? Of course, if the assumption is that you are applying the rule of three to your backups, then you can get away with it...

>Unix is one OS

All UNICES are proprietary. There isn't a single open source UNIX out there. I think you are confusing UNIX with free software clones.

Windows sucks because it's unstable pile of spaghetti with the worst chink drivers known to man. And the shell is object oriented. And programs like to shit files all over the place. Then there's the registry. Then there's activation that gets tied to your specific hardware setup. I could go on about the new phone-tier app store that makes you pay for video/audio codecs or the ads in the notifications, file explorer, or the start menu. But I don't think I need to discuss the forced updates and lost documents.

By the way, the core of Solaris and the basic CDE desktop are open source now. You can have a real Unix system with zero closed source components if you really want it. Tribblix for example is an OpenSolaris fork that's stable, has excellent package management, excellent drivers, and runs smooth as butter. And you're assmad that you'll never have such a clean and wonderful experience. Enjoy your Plan9 shit that can't even browse Jow Forums.

Attached: 1546383845208.jpg (800x600, 130K)

>it's okay that your OS implementation corrupts data because you're supposed to have backups anyway
POSIX/UNIX users are truly cucked by their OS.

Solaris was open source, and multiple forks are still maintained. I'm using one now.

Proprietary != closed source, you dumb freetard

>hurr durr Solaris is open source
Oracle killed OpenSolaris and re-licensed Solaris under a restrictive license. It's not free as in freedom, ergo it's proprietary.

BSD belongs to Unix and it's open-sourced.

I didn't imply that you fucking cunt.

See

No, we just use common sense instead of letting a corporate philospophy lull us into a false sense of security. Shit breaks!

>(Hint: Multics was sucessfully completed and they had productions systems)
Proof from Multics greybeards:
multicians.org/myths.html

BSD is not UNIX.

Allow me.
>UI inconsistency. Sprinkles of Windows 8, Windows 7, Windows Vista, and UWP.
>Candy Crush in the default install (lol)
>No ability to opt out of telemetry. You can only select 'Basic' telemetry to be sent.
>Two different shells, both of them shit.

Common sense overrules what is marketed to you.

>using a file system that corrupts data
>common sense
The absolute state of freetards. Use ZFS.

See

Attached: 6134757048_6ca67e60e3_b.jpg (776x602, 145K)

You're probably mistaking with GNU, which is acronym "GNU is Not Unix". BSD developed out of Unix, therefore belongs to them. In addition, Unix is a pholosophy and every *BSD system follows it.

I don't trust any FS with my data. Rule of three. Paranoia is expensive until it's justified, then it was a bargain.

>common sense
Common sense isn't common as you think
Hint: Its strongly tied to culture.

What's your context?

>BSD developed out of Unix
No, it didn't.

>therefore belongs to them.
Who are "them"?

>In addition, Unix is a pholosophy
No, it is an operating system and the last version was System V.

>every *BSD system follows it.
They don't even conform to POSIX.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Currently_registered_UNIX_systems

Think about a normie that takes to granted that their data is safe. They don't have common sense to do backups, because they don't know shit about how computer works.
We are "technical" users debating in a chilean cuisine forum, we know that even with three backups we can still lose data. But not everyone is like that.
If you intent to write software used widely you should think about the least common denominator.

I don't trust niggers and rapefugees, but that's no reason to open borders and say "It's stupid trust them anyway"

>Hah!!! I can't be cucked by my wife and Tyrone, I didn't trust her to begin with!!

Good points, but I'm not talking to the normies. If you're a professional and are responsible for the performance of an application that you're developing, then *within the context of a customer's infrastucture* you need to be able to defend your software's behavior. If their backup philosophy sucks, then its their problem.

No, you need to say "It's stupid, but also provide a path for integration into society".

>If their backup philosophy sucks, then its their problem.
Literal Poetterniggering mindset. Pushing broken updates and blaming the users.

A file system that corrupts or loses data is not acceptable, and POSIX is a meme standard. It doesn't matter how much you blame lack of backups, it's simply not acceptable behaviour.

I think you have the wrong idea. Fuck systemd, BTW. I'm sayin that the end user is responsible for their data and their infrastructure. Yes, it's reasonable for an application developer to help create a safety net in case shit goes south, but the implementer and system integrator needs to take ownership.

>Unix is a pholosophy and every *BSD system follows it.

Attached: 1547070006730.jpg (248x459, 18K)

See A broken file system implementation is not acceptable, regardless of what your backup routines are like.