Mail Archives: opendos/1997/03/12/01:23:35
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Tim Bird 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.)
On the secret wishlist...
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
LINUX: What changed from 2.0.27 to 2.0.28? I don't notice anything.
- Raw text -