Mail Archives: opendos/1997/05/01/20:10:28
>
> "Tim Bird" <tbird AT caldera DOT com> typed:
> >(as if they came from the directory entry). Physically, I would store
> >them not in the dir entry but in a separate data file in the file system.
>
> Another file? All these little files are very inefficient with the
> MS-DOS file cluster system (file sizes have to be a multiple of the
> cluster size, so that a 100 byte file may take up 4KB of disk space).
True, this would be something that required some solving.
>
> >Note that this would require a new file scanning call in the OS, to
> >retrieve a reference to this other file (and/or a call to get an attribute
> >value by name).
> >
> >> - Control/access attributes
> >> - Date/time stamps
>
> How about LFNs (Long File Names) or file descriptions?
Yes.
>
> >[etc.]
> >
> >Tim Bird
>
>
> But this is all a bit pre-emptive. Already we're making suggestions
> about reorganizing the basic filesystem while the OpenDos utils
> are still markedly inferior to MS-DOS's:
> 1) The dir command doesn't give the total bytes allocated
> in a directory and doesn't recurse
Have you looked at xdir - it is easily superior than anything in MS-DOS.
>
> 2) The EDIT program is very slow [on my 386] and doesn't let
> me highlight from the keyboard. How about a nice, simple
> text-mode based editor instead of a Windows GUI
> imitation without the power of the Windows GUI.
>
> 3) There is no QBASIC
>
> 4) There is no 'deltree'
see xdel
>
>
> I think 4DOS compatablity is more important than screwing up the
> file system. That can come after.
Most of these are 'pie-in-the-sky' ideas, but fun to toss around.
I'd agree with your prioritization.
Tim Bird
- Raw text -