Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 00:05:25 -0500 (EST)
From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
To: Paul W Brannan <brannanp AT musc DOT edu>
cc: "Jonathan E. Brickman" <brickman AT cjnetworks DOT com>, opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject: Re: [opendos] FSSTND
In-Reply-To: <Pine.ULT.3.95.970311175700.6712C-100000@atrium.musc.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970312000342.385L-100000@capslock.com>
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 Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Paul W Brannan wrote:

> > 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).
> 
> What about symlinking these directories to other places on the hd (so that
> porting unix progs to dos would be painless), and then making these
> symlinks transparent to the user?

DOS doesn't have symlinks yet.  Also, if we're going to have a
standard, a symlink is kindof pointless.  symlinks could be used
for legacy apps, which mostly would work under the new system
anyway.  Most DOS apps don't have their directories hard coded
into them.


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

URL of the day: http://www.digital.com