Message-Id: <199705080015.CAA00280@magigimmix.xs4all.nl>
From: "yeep" <yeep AT xs4all DOT nl>
To: "OpenDOS Mailing List" <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: FSSTD (was Re: DOS utilities)
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 02:12:51 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

> 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.

Yes, I'd rather follow my own standard as well.
as a matter of fact, we discussed this already, and there were some idea's
about env-vars or some ascii-file-env-var-extention, which saves memory.
I myself prefer a standard which you can fill in yourself, like in a file
called FSSTND.OD or somehting, which could probably be included in a
distribution package, with deafult values, so that people who like to use
the proposed standard, wouldn't need to edit it.
(Am I nice or what? :-) )

		Yeep