Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: How to improve Workbench 2.0! Message-ID: <1991Feb9.045506.1940@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 9 Feb 91 04:55:06 GMT References: <1991Feb1.010656.6638@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <7694@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Feb6.032607.21986@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 23 In article <1991Feb6.032607.21986@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > I suppose this is a dir output: Yeh, I realised I'd left that out after I logged off this inadequate system. I figure anyone who would learn from this would be able to figure it out. > Would you need to segregate stuff into once per boot stuff and > once per shell stuff, or can you really do it once and for all > at the start? You better be able to do it once and for all at the start: it may not be run from a shell, remember. What if it's run from a workbench? > I do agree that this make things considerably more straightforward, > though the eventual name space or "assign" collision is bound to occur. Probably, but it's a worthwhile tradeoff. Perhaps the files should be numbered? I understand the WBstartup directory has a similar use, but I don't know as it allows scripts. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .