From:	mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
Date:	Tue, 11 Mar 1997 05:19:14 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To:	mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
To:	"Jonathan E. Brickman" <brickman AT cjnetworks DOT com>
cc:	opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject:	Re: [opendos] FSSTND
In-Reply-To:	<199703101228.GAA01512@sound.net.>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970311051610.741F-100000@capslock.com>
Organization:	Total disorganization.
MIME-Version:	1.0
Sender:	owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net

On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Jonathan E. Brickman wrote:

> I disagree about using FSSTND as a standard for OpenDOS.
> FSSTND was designed as a good structure for a Unix.
> OpenDOS is a DOS, well-suited for constructing single-user
> workstations, not servers.  FSSTND implies a huge directory
> hierarchy that I don't see the need for under DOS.
> I also don't see applications support as a valid reason
> for using FSSTND: Makefiles are almost always quite
> easily reconfigurable for non-Unix directory structures,
> and super-long paths need to be first on the list of OpenDOS
> improvements if they are not already available.

When I mentioned using the Linux FSSTND, I meant as a _basis_ for
creating a DOS FSSTND, not as a direct copy.  Dir names could
change, many parts of the heirarchy would be unneeded such as
/var, /root, /boot, and many others.  Much of the /usr heirarchy
could also be eliminated.

I think we could use the *idea* of the Linux FSSTND to make
OpenDOS's future brighter, and make moving from machine to
machine in an office easier.  (Or from house to house for that
matter.  ie: your friend's computer).



Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |                  Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom...
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca

The Art Bell homepage: http://www.artbell.com

- Raw text -