From:	Tim Bird <tbird AT caldera DOT com>
Message-Id:	<199703120148.SAA31458@caldera.com>
Subject:	Re: [opendos] FSSTND
To:	mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
Date:	Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:48:03 -0700 (MST)
Cc:	brickman AT cjnetworks DOT com, opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970311051610.741F-100000@capslock.com> from "mharris@blackwidow.saultc.on.ca" at Mar 11, 97 05:19:14 am
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).

Absolutely agreed.  90% of DOS programs install themselves into a
directory at the root of the drive, for no other reason than that
there is no well-defined basic heirarchy defined.  (I realize
that defining a standard won't fix all the existing programs, but
it sure would be nice if even some programs placed themselves
somewhere reasonable without prompting.)

Tim Bird

- Raw text -