From: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 05:19:14 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca To: "Jonathan E. Brickman" cc: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net Subject: Re: [opendos] FSSTND In-Reply-To: <199703101228.GAA01512@sound.net.> Message-ID: Organization: Total disorganization. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net Precedence: bulk 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. When I mentioned using the Linux FSSTND, I meant as a _basis_ for creating a DOS FSSTND, not as a direct copy. Dir names could change, many parts of the heirarchy would be unneeded such as /var, /root, /boot, and many others. Much of the /usr heirarchy could also be eliminated. I think we could use the *idea* of the Linux FSSTND to make OpenDOS's future brighter, and make moving from machine to machine in an office easier. (Or from house to house for that matter. ie: your friend's computer). 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 The Art Bell homepage: http://www.artbell.com