Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 02:07:36 -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: Marty Leisner <leisner AT sdsp DOT mc DOT xerox DOT com>
cc: Paul W Brannan <brannanp AT musc DOT edu>,
        "Jonathan E. Brickman" <brickman AT cjnetworks DOT com>,
        opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject: Re: [opendos] FSSTND 
In-Reply-To: <9703121646.AA06340@gnu.sdsp.mc.xerox.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970313015735.955B-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 Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Marty Leisner wrote:

> 
> Mike Harris sez:
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> >
> 
> What?  How long have you been using DOS?

9 years.
 
> I used join many, many moons ago.

As have I.
 
> I joined a: to /a.
> 
> I broke just about every install program I have saw.

Granted.  However, a symlink is not the same as JOIN in any way
shape or form.  JOIN joins a drive letter to a subdirectory.
A symlink points to another file or another directory on the same
filesystem, or on any other filesystem.

 
> On windows, everything seems to install support files into
> <windows>/
> and
> <windows>/system
> 
> without any control.  Which is why whenever something breaks big time,
> the answer is:
> 	reinstall your system.

Yep.  Windows should have had a STANDARD install program which
windows programmers MUST use, as well as a standard uninstall
program.  Subdirectories would have also been very nice.  ie:

<WINDOWS>\DLL		- for all DLL files
<WINDOWS>\FONTS		- for all fonts
<WINDOWS>\VXD
<WINDOWS>\INI
<WINDOWS>\BIN		- for binaries that come with windows
<WINDOWS>\BITMAPS	- for BMP/RLE/GIF images for windows
<WINDOWS>\SOUNDS	- for windows cute little sounds
<WINDOWS>\SCR		- Screensavers
...

It would make navigating the sh*t much easier.  Also, NO programs
should be able to put files into the windows directories.
Instead there would be a matching tree like this:

<WINDOWS>\LOCAL\DLL		- for all DLL files
<WINDOWS>\LOCAL\FONTS		- for all fonts

If M$ had done this, we'd probably save ourselves from
reinstalling Windows every 10 minutes.

 
> Some vendor applications have hard coded path names on Unix -- very
> few applications insists on installing into /etc or /usr/bin or 
> such...

This is a good thing.  Then no matter which unix system you use,
you know where everything is.
 
> I think a DOS file system standard would be useful, one of the advantages
> of unix over dos was I can sit at a foreign unix machine and often
> understand where things were in 2 minutes.  Dos was just a hodgepodge of 
> customized paths.

Exactly what I just said.  I hope we can work together to bring
this missing feature to OpenDOS!

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

4DOS is a very powerful COMMAND.COM replacement with over 80 commands!