Mail Archives: opendos/1997/02/05/14:34:14
On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Mark Habersack wrote:
Moved from [opendos]:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Yes, we need to be in the competition with the other "DOS" systems,
> > which of course includes WINDoze 95. So, unfortunately, we need to
> > support FAT32. I am only an intermediate programmer, so can it be
> > made so that the Linux Ext2FS is used with a "transparent"
> > translation for programs expecting FAT32? That perhaps we could have
> Sure, should be no problem with that. It just requires a good definition of
> an independent API for dealing with *all* existing and future file systems
> (maybe with an exception of VMS FS which is *really* weird).
As much as VMS is weird, it does exist, and I think we should
implement something that works for ALL FS's. There must be a
simple way to put VMS LFN's into 8.3 format including version
numbers. IE: use the Mach mangling and use the extension for
version number info. FILENAMETHAT.ISAVMSFILENAME;34 would become
something like FILEN~K4.034. DEC pathworks mounts VMS drives
into DOS without a hitch. I doubt the source is available, but
nonetheless someone will want to mount VMS volumes. We shouldn't
be prejudiced against any OS in making OpenDOS better. Remember
the "Open" part.
> > (eventually) an FS that supports DOS programs, WINDOZE programs, and
> > WIN95 programs simultaneously? With a User-customizable GUI...
> Can be made the same way it is done on Linux: you just 'mount' the partition
> with another file system on some directory (or rather, in DOS case, as a
> separate drive - although it is possible to mount the partition as a subdir)
> and use it transparently (at least user-wise).
Yep, I think it should be possible to mount BOTH ways from the
start. I mean I for one love mounting under a subdir, but hey,
this is DOS, and I don't want to see drive letters disappear
either. Both ways should be made possible from the start.
> > > wait, I am getting ahead of things a bit here, aren't I?
> Why? The worst thing is to make the first step: design the API, then it's
> just a matter of implementing and testing it. Of course, it will take some
> time, but with a whole community of users/programmers on the Net, testing and
> improving it is much faster and reliable than inside *any* commercial
> software company IMHO.
I agree. The Open model is fairly new (in terms of a mass
market OS anyway). If you look at the success of Linux, I think
that it will work good for DOS.
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
Visit my homepage if you want your Dynamic IP address on your webpage.
- Raw text -