Message-Id:	<199702060027.BAA28511@math.amu.edu.pl>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
From:	"Mark Habersack" <grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Organization:	What? (Poznan, Poland)
To:	mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
Date:	Thu, 6 Feb 1997 01:26:32 +0100
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: [opendos-developer] Re: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32?
Reply-to:	grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
CC:	dg AT dcs DOT st-and DOT ac DOT uk, opendos-developer AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
References:	<199702022233 DOT XAA29456 AT math DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970205121428.4560C-100000@capslock.com>
Sender:	owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net

Once upon a time (on  5 Feb 97 at 13:08) mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on. said:

> > *exactly* on what do Caldera programmers work, what is scheduled for the
> > nearest future, what is available for volunteers etc.
> 
> Yes, there will definately have to be some kind of co-ordination
> with Caldera for "Official" releases, however I'm sure there will
> still be countless hacks and patches around.  I'd personally like
Yes, but what we're aiming for is a consistent OS, not a pile of patches 
fixing/improving one and the same thing. Sooner or later we'd get lost in 
that pile of litter!

> to se a mouse driver that is written in 100% ASM and has a small
> footprint!  Also the ability to recompile that driver and take
> out shit that most programs don't need by means of an option to
> make or something.
I had such a driver in mind for some time now, but couldn't find any info on 
hardware interface of the mouse device. Even Linux sources couldn't help much 
- they were to vague. Until recently I found the document on 
ftp://ftp.wa.net/pub/programming/hardware - not sure about the exact path - 
and now I can start thinking about it more seriously (BTW. Gene, great work 
with the FTP site!! Thanks!)

> I'm sure there will be a BIG announcement when they do!  I fear
> that it will be several months however.
....;-((

> > I'd add only two features to ext2fs - (1) a built-in encryption of data
> > (not necessarily on the C2 level, but it'd be very useful sometimes), (2)
> > compression-on-demand (sorta that on NTFS)
> 
> I'm not entirely sure, but I think Linux may have those features
> now (I read something about them in the HOWTO's).  I'm not sure
> if I read that they EXIST, or that they are easily added.
Hmm... can you remember which HOWTO was that?

> I think that OpenDOS is going to inherit a LOT of cool things
> from the wonderful world of Linux.  Some of which are:  ext2, and
> other FS support, different cool shell features, etc...
> Also, I think LINUX will benefit by bonusing on some DOS code
> too! This will help to make DOSemu more stable, in fact I think
> it will triple DOSemu developement.
I think OpenDOS will adapt DOSEmu. AFAIR, that was the Caldera plan to ship 
Linux+OpenDOS bundle, wasn't it?

> > > 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
> > Exactly. An structure-independent layer. But I think it should be done on
> > the IOCTL level.
> 
> Yes, it will have to be at the low level.
I was just thinking about that - will the current IOCTL calls do? Of course, 
there should be some IOCTLs added which would provide the FS-specific 
information to the higher, API, layer.

> > filename/path to its own format. Perhaps, DOS high-level API should also
> > recognize network notation.
> 
> Correct.  I agree completely.  NO new drive letter HACKS should
> be introduced.  It should be kept sensible and sane.  There is no
Two notations: DOS + Network.

> need for drive letters with ext2 anyways.  Just have a C: and
Well, you don't need them on plain DOS either (with join).

> mount an ext2 drive on root.  Mount other drives off of dirs on
> this one.  Or you could mount them on different drive letters if
> you wish.  Either way, who would ever need more than 26 drive
> letters if you could mount on a subdir?
Right.

> > > Or even a plain old FAT drive?
> > But Windoze 95 won't work on ext2fs or plain FAT - at least for now.
> 
> If Windows 95 will run off of a networked drive, then it should
> work with ext2 now.  ala the LREDIR method.  I'm sure
> direct support will be added before too long.
I guess you need an LM driver to allow Win95 to run from remote FS. Unless 
there's a driver on the other side that translates or FS ops/data to NFS.

_____________________________________________________________
The more I see, the more I hear, the more I find fewer
answers. I close my mind, I shut it out but you know it's
getting harder to calm down, to reason out, to come to terms
with what it's all about! I'm uptight, can't sleep at night
I can't pretend everything's alright! My ideals, my sanity
they seem to be deserting me but to stand up and fight I know
we have six million reasons!
(http://ananke.amu.edu.pl/~grendel) -------------------------

- Raw text -