Message-Id: <199702161557.QAA11708@magigimmix.xs4all.nl>
From: "yeep" <yeep AT xs4all DOT nl>
Cc: <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
Subject: Re: [opendos] BAD Filesystems
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 20:58:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk

> No, you don't understand what I mean.  Shared libs don't exist in
> DOS at all right now so adding them would be a NEW thing.  Any of
> the NEW features coming to DOS should try and support the FSSTND.
> This will aid the porting of many UNIX utilities and programs,
> and make life much simpler to EVERYONE.  Legacy apps would still
> run their normal way.  New apps could still run the old way too,
> however developers would have a lot of advantages to adhere to a
> standard such as FSSTND.  All config files go into \ETC, all
> LIB's in \LIB, user installed programs in \USR\LOCAL\LIB, or in
> something more DOSish such as \USR\APPS.
> 
> Most DOS programs don't NEED to use other directories, but those
> that would benefit by it could follow the FSSTND.  Shared libs
> will make this pretty much a good thing.

Shared libs sound good and all.
But I hate it when I have 500+ app's in one directory.
If you want top delete an app you no longer use, you've got to do some
seious searching to find out which binairies are for which app.
We've gotta make one helluva good standard to please both Linux users and
DOS users.

	Yeep