<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/27/05, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:wino@piments.com">wino@piments.com</a></b> <<a href="mailto:wino@piments.com">wino@piments.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Your Amiga example is fine, asking for the second of a pair of production<br>disks by name is helpful and the critisism of win2k not finding the CD in<br>F: is valid. But all that has nothing to do creating rediculous pathnames
<br>which will inevitably not fit into any message box or space allowed for<br>file name display. You will end up having to scroll around , resize<br>everything and even then you will probably be missing the filename cos it
<br>got chopped off.<br><br></blockquote></div><br>
Well, I see no point of naming a mount point the label of the disk,
when an installer can just look at the label when a disk is inserted
for automatic detection anyways! So we are talking about how well
an installer is written. Having these mount points do not improve
the usability of the installer.<br>