Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 14:15:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pierre Phaneuf <pp AT 55-174 DOT hy DOT cgocable DOT ca>
Reply-To: pierre AT tycho DOT com
To: Takashi Toyooka <ttoyooka AT verisim DOT com>
cc: OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: FSSTD (was Re: DOS utilities)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19970507114649.35cf31c0@pop.verisim.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970507141218.30029D-100000@55-174.hy.cgocable.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 7 May 1997, Takashi Toyooka wrote:

> 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).

We'll try to make that "reasonable defaults" that can be change... :-)
What does your directory structure looks like? I'd like to make something
that would be easy to make diskless workstation possible, like all local
configuration in a directory, all network-wide configuration in another
(so you can import the network-wide from a file server), and so on... I'm
having my guts ripped out trying to achieve something workable with
Windows NT and Windows 95! And it's the damn DEFAULT with Linux!

> 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.

You'd *LOVE* symbolic links. ;-)

Pierre Phaneuf