Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:51:35 -0800 (PST) From: Evan Dickinson Reply-To: evand AT scn DOT org To: OpenDOS Mailing List Subject: Re: [opendos] Standard Directories (was: FSSTND) In-Reply-To: <38F69C93C10@ibh.rwth-aachen.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net Precedence: bulk I changed the subject line. On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, Matthias Paul wrote: > Hi! > > Well, here is one more directory standard for discussion. After > developing this firm standard several years ago, we could greatly > reduce introductions to new users in our institution. Also, it > is much easier to update local files and applications on the > workstations. We do this semi-automatically by a set of > sophisticated, self-modifying, and self-replicating batchjobs > with two interface-jobs linked into AUTOEXEC.BAT. After one single > modification on the server, they do most of these boring works > for us... :-) > > Of course, the structure is not absolutely homegene and is slightly > changing from time to time, but we've made good experiences with it. > We tried to name the first hierachy level of directories with 3 > letters, since this is easy to remember. Now, we've almost no 'chaos' > files and directories on the workstations. Even if users install new > files/applications, they try to do it in respect of this system. > But mind: Always, a standard should only guide, not restrict. > > This one is a short summary for discussion, and would need to be > adapted for an 'OpenDOS standard'. Just FYI: > [Proposed directory structure snipped] You have your own system, as do I and everyone else. We'd all like to keep using our structure. I think the only solution that will please most people is one that lets us decide the names and locations of our directories. This could be the paths.dir file (see my other posts in the FSSTND thread) or some other system.