From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <1e2a7e1e1df55da4cb5ba6806105aa65@cs.Helsinki.FI>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] union directories
From: anyrhine@cs.Helsinki.FI
In-Reply-To: <5c952ea5ace5eb19dc04bc5363ba5952@vitanuova.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue,  4 Mar 2003 01:17:30 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 77c4c16a-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

...
> files obscured within a union mount are not accessible to me; in fact,
> apart from telling me that the directory probably contains a union
> mount, information on those files is of no use at all.

I like having the duplicates precisely for that information.
I tend to use a quite fixed set of bindings, and most of the time it's
just a question of wheter I've made them, not what I've bound
where. 

...
> acme the same - what's the point of showing me two of the same names
> next to each other?  it just causes clutter. clicking on either
> one performs exactly the same action.

Especially in acme, because there it's (imho) easier to look for the expected
duplicates than execute something, focus on the output window for
the results, and then focus back to the original window.