Mail Archives: opendos/1997/04/09/18:38:49
On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Alaric B. Williams wrote:
> > I'd say that from the moment it runs ok with the LFN support from DJGPP,
> > we'll have something...
>
> Indeed. DJGPP can start by using the real mode interface, but I think
> everyone will be eager to change libc to use an enhanced protected
> mode interface to this TSR if one is found; that'll be faster.
Yes, but for a primary release, striving for a 32-bit version of OpenDOS
is asking quite a thing... As some said, probably will come as OpenDOS for
the first release, then a subsequent OpenDOS/32 or something like that...
To everyone in power, I *urge* them to take a look at TSX-Lite (available
at http://www.sandh.com/__bbs__/tsxlite.htm ), a demo version of the
commercial (and heftily priced) TSX-32. Personally, *this* is about what I
need, maybe with some simple extensions on top of it (LFN)...
> > I run Linux here, and when I do DOS or Win95, I do
> > it with bash, using sh-utils (ls, mv, rm, etc...)... It's a shame they
> > works ultra-nice in Win95, but stalls on the long or weird filenames in
> > bare DOS (like choking on dotfiles)...
>
> With an ext2 IFS, you can use the same filesystem as with Linux :-)
Yes, but anyway you have to use DOS binaries, DOS compilers and
everything... My biggest project is build around a 16 bit real mode
Modula-2 compiler... Gotta be DOS! As I said, for a primary release,
simple API compatibility with the real mode interface to LFN would be more
than enough in this regard...
Thinking more about DOS extenders: not being a "high wizard", is there any
reason (beside increased binary size) instead of emulating DOS calls by
switching to real mode and calling the DOS kernel to do the IO, a DOS
extender wouldn't have its own FAT (and others services) routines
implemented as self-contained 32-bit procedures? With the disclosure of
the OpenDOS sources, we could probably extract the procedures from there
and convert those to 32-bit clean C (from ASM I guess)...
Pierre Phaneuf
- Raw text -