Mail Archives: opendos/1997/03/13/02:24:33
On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Jonathan E. Brickman wrote:
> > DOS doesn't have symlinks yet. Also, if we're going to have a
> > standard, a symlink is kindof pointless. symlinks could be used
> > for legacy apps, which mostly would work under the new system
> > anyway. Most DOS apps don't have their directories hard coded
> > into them.
>
> Yes. Hardcoded directory names is one of the things I find
> most pointless and counterproductive about Unix.
>
> Now, symlinks would be nice, but I'll settle for "mount".
> I want to be able to mount all of my drives under one
> hierarchy as well as A through Z.
Symlinks and mountable installable filesystems are being talked
about, and will probably be in the works once the sources are
released. They are on the wishlist anyways.
I actually prefer the hardcoded directories. That way I know
that any given file is in the same spot on all 5 Linux machines
that I use on a daily basis. My own, several college computers,
etc. In contrast, by not having standard directories in DOS, one
is left blind on a new machine. Have you ever tried to find
PKUNZIP on someone's machine? Mine is in C:\UTILS which is in my
path at ALL times. Other people either don't know where it is,
or don't know what it is.
I've written a little story humorizing a scenario not unlike the
one I've just given. I'm going to be posting it to the group
sometime soon, maybe tonight.
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
WABI: A commercial Windows emulator for Linux. http://www.caldera.com
- Raw text -