Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 16:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Evan Dickinson <evand AT wsunix DOT wsu DOT edu>
Reply-To: evand AT scn DOT org
cc: OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: FSSTD (was Re: DOS utilities)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970507141218.30029D-100000@55-174.hy.cgocable.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970507164607.14936A-100000@unicorn.it.wsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 7 May 1997, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

> 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.

Those of us who were here about two months ago already discussed this.  Go
to the mail list archives (www.delorie.com/opendos/) and search for
"Standard directories" in the opendos list. 

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