Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 15:23:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Evan Dickinson <evand AT wsunix DOT wsu DOT edu>
Reply-To: evand AT scn DOT org
To: OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
Subject: Re: [opendos] FSSTND
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970320070753.12128G-100000@capslock.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970320151540.530A-100000@unicorn.it.wsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII




Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Mike A. Harris wrote:
[snip]
> But if this is the method that is settled upon, a STANDARD list
> of directory paths should be chosen.  I also vote that NO
> PROGRAMS IN ANY WAY put there sh*t into a system directory such
> as DOS or OPENDOS or NWCLIENT or any other important dir like
> that.  This is a REAL BIG pain in the *SS with Windows 3.1 and I
> suspect all other offspring.
I *hate* rooting through my windows directory, trying to figure out what I
need.

> So basically if there is going to be a OPENDOS.STD file, it
> should come installed with certain defaults.  If you want to
> change them then you have to edit the file.  Sounds reasonable to
> me.  Personally I'd prefer a "worded standard", but this seems a
> comfortable comprimise.  I'm going to wait and see what everyone
> else thinks first.  Whatever seems to be the most popular I will
> add to the wishlist.  Otherwise I'll add them all as
> possibilities to the wishlist.

I agree with both your points.  If we come up with an unenforced name
standard, it'll probably catch on eventually.  In the meantime, we
stubborn people get something that won't cause anguish.