Mail Archives: opendos/1997/05/25/15:45:49
On Thu, 8 May 1997, yeep wrote:
> > I don't have a problem with a standard for newbies who don't know any
> > better (apologies to all newbies out there), but personally, I've devel-
> > oped my own DOS FSSTD of sorts, and I would *really* like to stick with
> > it. I don't want OpenDOS to fall into the trap of Unix, where changing
> > the directory structure is a non-trivial task (read: virtually
> impossible).
> >
> > Intelligent applications that can place their files into whatever direct-
> > ories you want (specifiable through a config file, or an ENV variable, or
> > something) will go a long way, IMO. If the default locations of all
> > those directories follow some FSSTD, that's no problem with me.
>
> Yes, I'd rather follow my own standard as well.
> as a matter of fact, we discussed this already, and there were some idea's
> about env-vars or some ascii-file-env-var-extention, which saves memory.
> I myself prefer a standard which you can fill in yourself, like in a file
> called FSSTND.OD or somehting, which could probably be included in a
But then there is nothing standard about it.
> distribution package, with deafult values, so that people who like to use
> the proposed standard, wouldn't need to edit it.
A hard standard is needed which can optionally be followed as
previously discussed. After the amount of debate on this though,
I doubt that any effort is worthwhile due to DOS braindamagedness
and user pig-headedness.
This isn't directed at you, but rather to 99% of DOS users out
there. I myself used to be the same way until I learned of the
merits of a FSSTND.
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
Email: mharris at blackwidow.saultc.on.ca <-- Spam proof address
DJGPP: Free 32 bit DOS C compiler.
- Raw text -