Mail Archives: opendos/1997/02/02/13:56:11
Why drive letters in the first place?
Drive numbers would allow for more flexibility than drive letters.
As another example, with linux if you have the right
speech synthesizer and emacs running on your system you can
also run emacspeak which gives a voice to linux.
On Sun,
2 Feb 1997
mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Mark Habersack wrote:
>
> > > >> Dunno whether it works as FAT32 is not here at the time. It will be
> > > >> released with Windoze 96 (or whatever they call it) AFAIK.
> > > >
> > > >Actually, Win95 OEM Service Release 2 has FAT32 built in.
> > > >(And no, it wouldn't work, at least not until someone adds FAT32
> > > >support....)
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Considering that there are emulators for:
> Atari 2600, Colecovision, Coleco ADAM, Vic-20, Commodore-64, Commodore
> plus 4, Pet, superpet, Nintendo (NES), Supernintendo, Sega Master
> system, Sega Genisis, Gameboy, gamegear, vectrex, Amiga, Macintosh,
> DOS, Windows, and virtually every other computer system & game
> console. And that these emulators are available for: PC's running
> DOS/Linux/other unix, Macintosh, Amiga, etc.
>
> It just shows that there are some VERY dedicated programmers out
> there, and if they want something, THEY WILL PROGRAM IT!! I'm sure
> you will agree with this one eh? I think that not only will we have
> FAT32 & ext2 in OpenDOS, but that we will have EVERYTHING else that
> people have mentioned that they want.
>
> Strange that arguments crop up on some of these discussions eh? I
> mean we're going to have the source code! That means that ALL is
> possible! I'm not worried at all because I know that I only need
> mention a useful feature once, and either tomorrow someone will have
> added it, or else I will myself! (sources released of course)
>
> Look at Linux: There is support for the damned Mattel POWERGLOVE!!!!!
> That is DEDICATION if I've ever seen it!
>
> Boy I can't wait until we get those sources eh Mark?
>
>
> > > If we used ext2, then not only do we get a fast, reliable file system, we
> > > get long filenames, *real* user/group attributes, symbolic links,
> > > autodefragmenting, and a/m/c timestamps. This has to be a good thing.
> > Nothing prevents from writing a driver as soon as the sources are out. I'm
> > sure that more than 80% of users will switch to ext2fs after a while.
>
> Oh, I certainly agree. We wont NEED programs like speeddisk then!
> EXT2 is fantastic! Waste's virtually no space at all (compared to
> FAT), and is very rugged. It is much better than any M$ filesystems.
> The only comparable ones being HPFS (OS/2) and possibly NTFS (NT).
>
> The way I see it, the only problems of including filesystem support
> for any of the new modern filesystems from an application's
> viewpoint are:
>
> 1) Long filenames
> 2) Symlinks
> 3) Drive letters / device names
>
> A SINGLE API could be written to accomodate all of these problems for
> once and for all. (kinda a IFS layer). This layer would report to
> DOS programs the proper filenames regardless of the underlying
> filesystem (FAT32/ext2/HPFS/NTFS/minix/whatever)
>
> I'm sure it will come to this though.
>
> > > FAT32 compatability is not an issue, considering that anyone who uses
> > > OpenDOS will not be using Win95. So why not go for the technically superior
> > > solution?
> > I wouldn't assume that. Many people use Windoze 95 just because they need
> > some advanced tools designed *only* for that, err..., system [grin]. Take
> > Corel Draw for one, some feel comfortable with Word (!?!?) and other apps.
> > Even if these applications were ported to, say, X-Windows and we would be
> > able to run them under X emulation lib for OpenDOS, then a *decent* operating
> > system that claims its compatible with its predecessors, should support their
> > native features, in our case all flavors of FAT.
>
> I agree that ALL existing filesystems should be available under
> OpenDOS, however why couldn't you install Corel Draw on an ext2 drive?
> Or even a plain old FAT drive?
>
> If IFS support is added...xxxxx Let me start over again. WHEN IFS
> support is added to OpenDOS, it will also be available under '95 no?
> I'm sure that someone will add it to '95 before too long anyways.
> Granted it may be a hack or a DLL or whatever but someone will do it.
> Perhaps M$ will lose so much money that they will include support for
> ext2 just to get back some customers! :o)
>
> We'll be laughing about this in 5 years time anyways. :o)
>
> TTYL
>
>
> Mike A. Harris | http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
> Computer Consultant | My webpage has moved and my address has changed.
> My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
> mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
>
> LINUX: What changed from 2.0.27 to 2.0.28? I don't notice anything.
>
>
jude <jdashiel AT eagle1 DOT eaglenet DOT com>
- Raw text -