Mail Archives: opendos/1997/02/04/10:25:31
>First of all, making different FS modules would be the way to go.. I would
>perfer one that has Win95's VFAT LFN support since.. yup, I use Win95 on
>the same system and I don't like defragin' and reinstalling most of Win95
again
>afterwards..
>
>Secondly, OS/2 already has a IFS module setup feature in the OS and I know
>there is a GPL (forgive me if I used the wrong letters) Ext2 IFS module out
>for it, now it should be pretty straight forward to convert over to work with
>OpenDOS if it added the same modules support, especially since this module
>comes with the source (GPL is kinda kewl sometimes)
>
>Jonathan Tarbox
>
>----------
>From: chambersb AT juno DOT com[SMTP:chambersb AT juno DOT com]
>Sent: Monday, February 03, 1997 9:32 PM
>To: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
>Subject: Re: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32?
>
>
>On Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:39:40 +0100 "Mark Habersack"
><grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl> writes:
>>Once upon a time (on 2 Feb 97 at 0:18) jdashiel AT eagle1 DOT eaglenet DOT com
>>said:
>>
>>> Why not make the fat 32 an I.F.S? Then this way if it's
>>> supplied users can decide which way they'd like to go.
>>Coz there's no documentation of IFS interface. Besides it's an M$
>>standard
>>and, as such, is being kept secret ;-)). I'd vote for developing an
>>OpenDOS-specific format of such an installable FS driver (and one that
>>can be
>>dynamically loaded/unloaded without all that black magic needed to
>>remove an
>>installed SYS driver on DOS)
>You mean... DOG LET'S YOU REMOVE A .SYS DRIVER??????
>Who'd of guessed??? I thought M$'s policy was "It worked for you
>yesterday - if you don't want it there anymore/it's not working anymore,
>then YOU're the one that has a bug, cause OUR stuff is great!"
>
>...Chambers
>
>
>
- Raw text -