From: jdashiel AT eagle1 DOT eaglenet DOT com
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 22:54:19 -0500 (EST)
To: evand AT scn DOT org
Cc: OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
Subject: Re: [opendos] FSSTND
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970314092712.1322A-100000@unicorn.it.wsu.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.NXT.3.95.970314224555.16736O-100000@eagle1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk

Yes, I am suggesting placing all paths in paths.dir for a couple reasons.
New users, they have lots of trouble with paths five or more directories
deep and this way the new user can be told,
print out paths.dir and you'll have all existing paths in ffront of you.
An engineering student from Bengal messed up the computer of a good friend 
I have who is a very new user and did it in precisely that way.
Beyond this, there are security concerns.
If paths.dir were run through the rcs utilities any time
any software changed path structure either by adding or deleting paths
this could be quickly bought to the user's attention.
Beyond that, perhaps lines with # on them or lines that have something
else on them followed by # could also hold comments about file directory
content left by
the user.
If this structure were extended to files.dir which documented files in the
same way, opendos would come closer to 4dos at very little cost.



jude <jdashiel AT eagle1 DOT eaglenet DOT com>