Hi, I have just reas a description of why/how an iso is different from a copy. I have read this description a number of times and I have read other attempts at descriptions that use "easily" understandable analogies. These bits of writing seem to me to be more acuratly good explinations and examples of nonsence, gobblygoog, doublespeak and bol**cks rather than comming anywhere close to explaining to me what the differance is between an iso, a clone and a copy. In paticular I have just read one of these attempted descriptions that likened an iso to a screen shot and therefore all of the files in this iso would be accessable rather that a copy where I suppose they wouldn't be. Shurely if a copy is made of a filesystem the files in that system would also be accessable, otherwise what would be the point in copying the filesystem in the firstplace ?.
I may have touched on this subject before in this forum and if it turns out that I have, I'm sorry. Although I must not have received an understandable explination otherwise I wouldn't be questioning this still.
Does anyone know of a easy to understand faq for this topic that might illuminate things for me ?.