Mail Archives: opendos/1997/02/01/23:23:06
[...]
>> If we're going to change operating system, can we at least change operating
>> system to a *decent* one, like MinixFS or Ext2FS? FAT32 is another gross
>> hack on top of VFAT which is a gross hack on top of FAT16 which is a gross
>> hack on top of FAT12 which wasn't a decent file system when it was
>> *developed*, let alone these days. It doesn't even have automatic
>> defragmenting!
>All true, but OpenDOS will *have to* stay compatible with FAT, and if we want
>it to be *the best*, then we have to support FAT32 as well.
[...]
Sure. Compatibility is Good. But I'm talking about the root file system, the one that's built into the kernel. There's no reason why you can't have FAT16, FAT32, HFS etc as drivers, like Linux does. But why should we have to use something as awful as FAT16 *as default*?
DEVICE="C:\System Folder\OpenDOS\Memory Manager"
DEVICEHIGH="C:\System Folder\OpenDOS\FAT16 Driver"
DEVICEHIGH="C:\System Folder\OpenDOS\FAT32 Driver"
DEVICEHIGH="C:\System Folder\OpenDOS\ISO9660 Driver"
INSTALL="C:\System Folder\OpenDOS\Disk Cache Driver" 1024 16384
I've written a (slightly dodgy) file system for Linux, and I've wanted to do the same for DOS. The only things that hampered me were (a) total lack of documentation of how to write file system drivers for DOS, and (b) a sinking feeling as I realised I would have to do it in i86 assembly...
--
------------------- http://www-hons-cs.cs.st-and.ac.uk/~dg --------------------
If you're up against someone more intelligent than you are, do something
totally insane and let him think himself to death. --- Pyanfar Chanur
---------------- Sun-Earther David Daton Given of Lochcarron ------------------
- Raw text -