The document "Home Loss File System" outlines a meticulously detailed and comprehensive system for organizing digital files related to a significant and traumatic event: the loss of one's home. Recognizing the overwhelming nature of such a situation and the crucial importance of readily accessible documentation, the spreadsheet provides a structured framework for managing various types of files across different categories. The system aims to streamline the process of retrieving vital information during an already stressful period by categorizing files logically and suggesting specific naming conventions.
The system divides information into five primary categories: Finance, Property, Memories, Daily Life, and Important Documents. Each category is further broken down into subcategories with specific file naming recommendations to ensure consistency and facilitate easy searching. For instance, the Finance category includes subcategories like Insurance, Bills, and Donations Received, while Property encompasses subcategories such as Before Photos, Appraisal Documents, and Repair Estimates. The Memories category provides a space for preserving precious photos, videos, and audio recordings, while Daily Life focuses on managing the logistics of displacement, including temporary housing, food, and transportation. The Important Documents category covers essential personal records such as identification, medical information, and legal documents.
The spreadsheet not only suggests detailed subcategories and file naming conventions but also provides a column for notes, allowing users to add specific context or details about each file. This allows for greater clarity and understanding when revisiting these documents later. Furthermore, the inclusion of a "Location" column emphasizes the importance of backing up these crucial files in multiple locations, such as cloud storage, external hard drives, or physical copies, to mitigate the risk of data loss.
Essentially, the "Home Loss File System" acts as a crucial organizational tool designed to empower individuals navigating the complexities of losing their home. By providing a clear and structured approach to file management, it seeks to alleviate the burden of information retrieval and provide a sense of control during a challenging time. The system's emphasis on detailed categorization, specific file naming, and multiple backups ensures that vital information remains accessible and secure throughout the recovery process.
The blog post "DOS APPEND" from the OS/2 Museum meticulously details the functionality and nuances of the APPEND command in various DOS versions, primarily focusing on its evolution and differences compared to the PATH command. APPEND, much like PATH, allows programs to access data files located in directories other than their current working directory. However, while PATH focuses on executable files, APPEND extends this capability to data files, specified by various file extensions.
The article begins by explaining the initial purpose of APPEND in DOS 3.3, highlighting its ability to search specified directories for data files when a program attempts to open a file not found in the current directory. This eliminates the need for programs to explicitly handle path information for data files. The post then traces the development of APPEND through later DOS versions, including DOS 3.31, where a significant bug related to networked drives was addressed.
A key distinction between APPEND and PATH is elaborated upon: PATH affects only the search for executable files (.COM, .EXE, and .BAT), while APPEND pertains to data files with extensions specified by the user. This difference is crucial for understanding their respective roles within the DOS environment.
The blog post further delves into the various ways APPEND can be used, outlining the command-line switches and their effects. These switches include /E, which loads the appended directories into an environment variable, /PATH:ON, which enables searching the appended directories even when a full path is provided for a file, and /PATH:OFF, which disables this behavior. The post also explains the use of /X, which extends the functionality of APPEND to affect the EXEC function calls, thus influencing child processes.
The evolution of APPEND continues to be discussed, noting the removal of the problematic /X:ON and /X:OFF switches in later versions due to their instability. The article also touches upon the differences in behavior between APPEND in MS-DOS/PC DOS and DR DOS, particularly concerning the handling of the ; delimiter in the APPEND list and the search order when multiple directories are specified.
Finally, the post concludes by briefly discussing the persistence of APPEND in later Windows versions for compatibility, even though its utility diminishes in these more advanced operating systems with their more sophisticated file management capabilities. The article thoroughly explores the intricacies and historical context of the APPEND command, offering a comprehensive understanding of its functionality and its place within the broader DOS ecosystem.
The Hacker News post titled "DOS APPEND" with the link https://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos-append/ has several comments discussing the utility of the APPEND command in DOS and OS/2, as well as its quirks and comparisons to other operating systems.
One commenter recalls using APPEND frequently and finding it incredibly useful, particularly for accessing data files located in different directories without having to constantly change directories or use full paths. They highlight the convenience it offered in a time before sophisticated development environments and integrated development environments (IDEs).
Another commenter draws a parallel between APPEND and the modern concept of environment variables like $PATH in Unix-like systems, which serve a similar purpose of specifying locations where the system should search for executables. They also touch on how APPEND differed slightly in OS/2, specifically regarding the handling of data files versus executables.
Further discussion revolves around the intricacies of APPEND's behavior. One comment explains how APPEND didn't just search the appended directories but actually made them appear as if they were part of the current directory, creating a virtualized directory structure. This led to some confusion and unexpected behavior in certain situations, especially with programs that relied on obtaining the current working directory.
One user recounts experiences with the complexities of managing multiple directories and files in early versions of Turbo Pascal, illustrating the context where a tool like APPEND would have been valuable. This comment also highlights the limited tooling available at the time, emphasizing the appeal of features like APPEND for streamlining development workflows.
Someone points out the potential for conflicts and unexpected results when using APPEND with programs that create files in the current directory. They suggest that APPEND's behavior could lead to files being inadvertently created in a directory different from the intended one, depending on how the program handled relative paths.
The security implications of APPEND are also addressed, with a comment mentioning the risks associated with accidentally executing programs from untrusted directories added to the APPEND path. This highlights the potential security vulnerabilities that could arise from misuse or improper configuration of the command.
Finally, there's a mention of a similar feature called apppath in the REXX language, further illustrating the cross-platform desire for this kind of directory management functionality.
Overall, the comments paint a picture of APPEND as a powerful but somewhat quirky tool that provided a valuable solution to directory management challenges in the DOS/OS/2 era, while also introducing potential pitfalls that required careful consideration. The discussion showcases how APPEND reflected the computing landscape of the time and how its functionality foreshadowed concepts that are commonplace in modern operating systems.
Summary of Comments ( 75 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42700997
Several commenters on Hacker News expressed skepticism about the practicality and necessity of the "Home Loss File System" presented in the linked Google Doc. Some questioned the complexity introduced by the system, suggesting simpler solutions like cloud backups or RAID would be more effective and less prone to user error. Others pointed out potential vulnerabilities related to security and data integrity, especially concerning the proposed encryption method and the reliance on physical media exchange. A few commenters questioned the overall value proposition, arguing that the risk of complete home loss, while real, might be better mitigated through insurance rather than a complex custom file system. The discussion also touched on potential improvements to the system, such as using existing decentralized storage solutions and more robust encryption algorithms.
The Hacker News post titled "Home Loss File System" with the linked Google spreadsheet detailing personal experiences with home loss (presumably due to natural disasters) generated a moderate number of comments, many expressing empathy and sharing related anxieties.
Several commenters focused on the emotional impact of the spreadsheet's contents. They found the accounts poignant and unsettling, highlighting the precariousness of housing security and the devastating consequences of such losses. The raw, personal nature of the entries resonated deeply, reminding readers of the human cost behind these statistics. Some expressed a sense of shared vulnerability and acknowledged the fear of facing similar situations.
A few commenters discussed the practical implications of the data, suggesting it could be valuable for research or advocacy related to disaster preparedness and housing resilience. They pointed out the potential for using this kind of crowdsourced information to understand trends, identify vulnerabilities, and inform policy decisions.
Some of the more compelling comments included reflections on the importance of insurance and the limitations thereof. Commenters discussed the complexities of navigating insurance claims and the potential gaps in coverage that can leave individuals financially devastated. The inadequacy of insurance in truly covering the emotional and personal losses associated with home destruction was also a recurring theme.
Several individuals shared personal anecdotes related to home loss or near misses, adding their own experiences to the collective narrative presented in the spreadsheet. These personal accounts added further weight to the discussion, underscoring the real-world implications of the issues being discussed.
The thread also touched upon broader societal issues related to climate change and its increasing impact on housing security. Some commenters expressed concern about the growing frequency and intensity of natural disasters and the need for more proactive measures to mitigate these risks and protect vulnerable communities.
While there wasn't an overwhelming number of comments, the existing ones provided valuable insights and perspectives on the human impact of home loss, the complexities of insurance, and the growing concerns about climate change and its implications for housing security.