Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!nmtsun!jrwsnsr
From: jrwsnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Jonathan R. Watts)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: READ.ME: A modest proposal
Message-ID: <3330@nmtsun.nmt.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 89 01:23:39 GMT
References: <30359@pbhya.PacBell.COM> <d4WZ02D.5f1m01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Organization: New Mexico Tech, Socorro NM
Lines: 17

In article <d4WZ02D.5f1m01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, khearn@uts.amdahl.com (Bug Hunter) writes:
> In article <30359@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whh@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
> >The inclusion of READ.ME files--while useful--is a holdover from the
> >days of most machines having only 1 or 2 diskette drives.  While the
> >file still serves a useful purpose for general recipients, the common
> >name (and it's common variants) create a name collision problem on
> >a lot of machines thses days.
> 
> Not if you create subdirectories for different pacakages.

I do keep separate subdirectories myself, but I still have a problem with
READ.ME files, because I like to keep all my documentation in one directory!
I usually rename them <first four letters>READ.ME.

   - Jonathan Watts

jrwsnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu