From: Tim Bird Message-Id: <199703120148.SAA31458@caldera.com> Subject: Re: [opendos] FSSTND To: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:48:03 -0700 (MST) Cc: brickman AT cjnetworks DOT com, opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net In-Reply-To: from "mharris@blackwidow.saultc.on.ca" at Mar 11, 97 05:19:14 am Content-Type: text 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). Absolutely agreed. 90% of DOS programs install themselves into a directory at the root of the drive, for no other reason than that there is no well-defined basic heirarchy defined. (I realize that defining a standard won't fix all the existing programs, but it sure would be nice if even some programs placed themselves somewhere reasonable without prompting.) Tim Bird