Mail Archives: opendos/1997/03/13/21:42:50
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Evan Dickinson wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> While I agree with the idea of a standard, I abhor hardcoded directory
> names. I've already got my own directory structure and I hate programs
> that won't respect that.
Well, I've got my own directory structure too, and mine is
probably different from yours. That is the reason for pushing
for such a standard. If everyone has things in the same spot, it
makes life easier. Everyone will want their current heirarchy to
be "the standard" and none will become it. As much as some
people may not like the idea of such a standard, it will probably
come to be anyway. Hard coded directories are not necessarily
part of this standard however. I think that hard coded dirs
should not be used.
> In lieu of hardcoded directories, I'd suggest a file whose contents look
> something like this:
>
> utility=c:\util
> app=c:\dosapps;d:\dosapps
> game=c:\games
> library=d:\opendos\lib
> temp=c:\temp
> etc...
Perhaps something like that. A default directory tree needs to
be constructed, and then a user is free to change it to his own
needs, fully realizing that he is breaking standard practice.
I'm fully willing to give up my current structure if I know that
the "standard" way will give me additional benefits.
> Different users would enter their own directories instead of mine.
But possibly lose compatibility. Also, they'd just be continuing
to support the DOS chaotic directory structure. My vote is
definately for the standard. Once again, it won't be hard coded
dirs though. If you install elsewhere, then you'll have to do a
manual uninstall, or figure it out yourself.
> Then an installer wanting to install off of an app directory would read
> this file, and ask if it should install into c:\dosapps, d:\dosapps or
> another directory. A simple "type paths.dir" would show you were
> everything is.
>
> This way, we keep our directories and enforce a standard.
Well, I think that some sort of comprimise between the two will
be reached. It just needs to be discussed at more great length.
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
DJGPP: Current version 2.01
- Raw text -