Message-Id:	<199704251242.OAA11933@grendel.sylaba.poznan.pl>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <grendel@[150.254.113.14]>
From:	"Mark Habersack" <grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Organization:	PPP (Pesticide Powered Pumpkins)
To:	alaric AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk
Date:	Fri, 25 Apr 1997 14:41:42 +0100
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: Usage of directory entries
Reply-to:	grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
CC:	"Alaric B. Williams" <alaric AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>,
	Matthias DOT Paul AT post DOT rwth-aachen DOT de, opendos-developer AT delorie DOT com
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970423210821 DOT 6868E-100000 AT 55-174 DOT hy DOT cgocable DOT ca>
In-reply-to:	<861911958.0525139.0@abwillms.demon.co.uk>

Once upon a time (on 24 Apr 97 at 20:08) Alaric B. Williams said:

> > Things like file system checking and defragmentation are things better
> > done while the file system is either unmounted or mounted read-only.
> 
> You mean /more easily done/. Easier for programmers. Better for users 
> if it happens invisibly.
I am really sceptic about such 'invisible' or 'automatic' things - after 
experiences with M$'s software...

> Priorities... this isn't Linux we're building here... OpenDOS is for
> everyone. IMHO.
True, but why wouldn't it be a "real" operating system like Linux is? In 
fact, we should take as much from Linux as we can with OpenDOS still being 
DOS!
==================================================
Stand straight, look me in the eye and say goodbye
Stand straight, we drifted past the point of
  reasons why.
Yesterday starts tommorow, tommorow starts today
And the problems seem to be we're picking up the
  pieces of a ricochet...

- Raw text -