From: jdashiel AT eagle1 DOT eaglenet DOT com
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 22:56:36 -0500 (EST)
To: "Jonathan E. Brickman" <brickman AT cjnetworks DOT com>
Cc: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject: Re: [opendos] FSSTND
In-Reply-To: <199703101228.GAA01512@sound.net.>
Message-Id: <Pine.NXT.3.95.970310225146.16737L-100000@eagle1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk

Right, that's why they wrote configure scripts.  Make files will need
some
user-insulation if they're not to drive tech support nuts.  Furthermore, 
opendos comes with
a network package depending on the version you download.  Those who sold 
novelldos
made a few dollars from selling that package over the years too.
It all depends on the size of the fish and the size of your pond, those
who have the
aquarium will think goldfish are the universe while those who have the
ocean
will know about whalesharks and other fishes.
On Mon, 10
Mar 1997, Jonathan E. Brickman 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.
> 
> 
> 


jude <jdashiel AT eagle1 DOT eaglenet DOT com>