Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!cbmvax!andy
From: andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Sys:System vs. System:
Message-ID: <3343@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 19 Feb 88 23:20:23 GMT
References: <7025@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 31

In article <7025@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> spencer@eris.berkeley.edu (Randal m. Spencer [RmS]) writes:
>Ok, here is an interesting point.  Who out there is using sys:c or sys:l
>or any variation on that in their programming.  I'll tell you who is

>But on top of
>that it made me realize that the idea of workbench keeping its files
>(diskcopy and format) in sys:system and not system: is also quite annoying.

Are you advocating keeping all such files in the root ?
Workbench keeps its files in the System drawer so a) it can
find them, and b) so they don't clutter up the root directory.

Many other operating systems find the idea of splitting
up the commands into different directories useful, as well.
Among other things, it minimizes name collision.

>why do I have to create a directory in ram called system when I want to
>run diskcopy and format out of ram?  I want to just copy the files and
>then assign System: to Ram:, or is that just me that feels this way?

Well, one more logical name wouldn't be too bad.  Of course, you
could no longer name a disk (or volume) System.  But where to stop ?
That's the question.
-- 
andy finkel		{ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy 
Commodore-Amiga, Inc.

"Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle."
		
Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share.
I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.