On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:23:10 -0500, L.D. Best wrote:
> The use of 8+3 directory names is not "funny" nor is it stretching any
> DOS rule. A "directory" is nothing more than a file that lists where
> other files are hiding. Any OS which can handle 8+3 as a file name can
> handle 8+3 as a "directory" name.
I am aware of that. The OS itself can handle it, but some programs
imperfectly written for the OS cannot. Many programs have problems with
funny directory names.
> The fact that you've run across such poorly written software that it
> can't handle an 8+3 directory name does not excuse the fact that Arachne
> *could* handle it before, but 1.70r3 *can't* handle it and SHOULD.
Yes, it could, and it would be nice if it would, and it certainly should,
but it doesn't. Perhaps Michael should try to fix it some day, but I
don't think a little problem like this deserves any high priority.
> If I wanted software that told me where to install software and how to
> name my subdirectories, I'd be using Windoze, not DOS & Arachne.
That's right! I am suggesting only that you name your directories in such
a way that they can be handled by the peculiar quirks of some of your
software. You can still install your software into whatever directories you
want, and you may give your directories whatever names you want, but you
should avoid using directory names having extensions.
> Your "solution" reminds me of the guy who went to the doctor because he
> was periodically dysfunctional, and was told that if he'd just become
> celibate he wouldn't have to worry about the problem.
Sounds like perfectly sensible advice to me! Periodic dysfunctionality is
best treated by periodic celibacy.
I myself enjoy indulging in a little celibacy every now and then.
Peace and bliss to you!
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
