Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!plx!slvblc!dick
From: dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: FOLLOW-UP: Microsoft C V5.1 Setup Warning
Message-ID: <1510@slvblc.UUCP>
Date: 30 Apr 88 10:57:19 GMT
References: <1455@slvblc.UUCP> <1468@slvblc.UUCP> <146@atpal.UUCP>
Sender: uupc@slvblc.UUCP
Reply-To: slvblc!dick@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (Dick Flanagan)
Organization: SLV Systems Group, Ben Lomond, California
Lines: 55
Summary: Some ported-from-unix applications prefer the '.'
Disclaimer: none


In article <146@atpal.UUCP> tneff@atpal.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>In article <1468@slvblc.UUCP> slvblc!dick@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (Dick Flanagan) writes:
>> ... Well, well, well.  I do, indeed, begin my PATH with a directory of '.',
>>so at least now I know where that damned '[.]' came from. ...
>
>This begs the question, why did you put "." in your PATH in the first place?
>MS-DOS always searches your current directory (denoted ".") for executables
>before searching the directories listed in the PATH environment variable.

The "." is in my PATH because several ported-from-UNIX applications only
look at the PATH to find their support files.  Without the "." I would
have to extend my path to include all of their individual application
directories as well.  The leading "." solved those problems at the minimal
cost (for me) of re-searching the current directory cache for other files.

>Thus saying PATH=.;<other directories> forces DOS to search your current
>directory TWICE for programs stored elsewhere.  On a floppy based system
>this could be time consuming; it seems wasteful anywhere.  No wonder MS
>didn't anticipate it in their install program.

A couple of points here, Tom:

        DOS isn't the only user of the PATH variable (see above).

        I don't run a floppy-based system.

        I don't recall suggesting that floppy-based system users (or
        anyone else, for that matter) use "." in their PATH.  *8-)

        Most floppy-bases systems actually DO contain "A:\;B:\" in
        their PATH's, causing occasional-to-frequent "double searches."

        Adequate disk caching (either through DOS CONFIG.SYS buffers
        or third-party products) minimizes "double search" penalties.

        It is very common for hard-disk users to begin their PATH
        with "\" which would cause the same MS C setup behavior.

        I should be able to structure my PATH to satisfy MY needs,
        and not be at potential risk because Microsoft "didn't
        anticipate it."

Tom, my original postings were to warn folks who begin their PATH's with
either ".", "A:", or "\" that the MS C 5.1 setup program would offer them
potentially dangerous default options.  While I've always accepted the
blame for not write-protecting my diskettes, it never occured to me that
folks would blame me because I didn't structure my PATH "right."

Dick

--
Dick Flanagan, W6OLD                         GEnie: FLANAGAN
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!slvblc!dick           Voice: +1 408 336 3481
Internet: slvblc!dick@ucscc.UCSC.EDU         LORAN: N037 04.7 W122 04.6
USPS: PO Box 155, Ben Lomond, CA 95005