Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19970507114649.35cf31c0@pop.verisim.com>
Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 11:46:49 -0400
To: OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
From: Takashi Toyooka <ttoyooka AT verisim DOT com>
Subject: FSSTD (was Re: DOS utilities)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970507103225.23868B-100000@55-174.hy.cgocabl
 e.ca>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 93 DOT 970507093656 DOT 23273A-100000 AT xs1 DOT xs4all DOT nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

Oh no!  It's FSSTD again!  :-)

At 10:39 1997/05/07 -0400, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:
>Not sure about that... Would make heck of a slow database, and why would
>you like to relocate? If all packages are put in sensible places... I know
>DOS doesn't have a filesystem standard (in term of directory
>organization, there a place for each things) like Unix, but a minimal
>standard would be fine... I like the "/ProgramFiles/Company/Product"
>hiearchy of Win95 for external programs... Or maybe it is time to make a
>filesystem standard? It needs not to be as complex and far-fetched as
>Unix, but a good simple one would be nice...

I don't have a problem with a standard for newbies who don't know any
better (apologies to all newbies out there), but personally, I've devel-
oped my own DOS FSSTD of sorts, and I would *really* like to stick with
it.  I don't want OpenDOS to fall into the trap of Unix, where changing
the directory structure is a non-trivial task (read: virtually impossible).

Intelligent applications that can place their files into whatever direct-
ories you want (specifiable through a config file, or an ENV variable, or
something) will go a long way, IMO.  If the default locations of all
those directories follow some FSSTD, that's no problem with me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Takashi Toyooka <ttoyooka AT pobox DOT com>                     Verisim, Inc.
http://www.magi.com/~ttoyooka/                 http://www.verisim.com/