Date:	Wed, 7 May 1997 14:21:57 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Pierre Phaneuf <pp AT 55-174 DOT hy DOT cgocable DOT ca>
Reply-To:	pierre AT tycho DOT com
To:	OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: BIG suggestion for Opendos Features
In-Reply-To:	<3.0.1.16.19970507113652.35ef03e2@pop.verisim.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970507141546.30029E-100000@55-174.hy.cgocable.ca>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Wed, 7 May 1997, Takashi Toyooka wrote:

> You can quote spaces with backslashes, like this:
> 
>     mv File\ With\ Spaces.txt NewFileWithNoSpaces.txt
> 
> Yuk.  Embedding spaces into filenames is gross.  One thing about Win95
> that really irked me is that some of the files had embedded spaces.
> And Win95's use of double-quotation marks to specify embedded spaces
> is worse than the use of backslashes.  IMHO.

Yuk indeed!!! This is horrible!

> On the whole topic of case sensetivity that's been wracking this group,
> I don't think there's any burning need to modify FAT.  I think we all
> agree that backward compatibility is vital to OpenDOS.  If it can't run
> legacy apps, it may as well be a whole new OS.  Therefore, whether we
> make some enhancement to FAT or not, the good old FAT will still have
> to be around for people to use.

I don't think much will happen to OpenDOS/16, apart maybe VFAT and a few
improvements. OpenDOS/32 though will get a slew of improvement (ext2 is a
memory hog compared to FAT!) and will have its own protected mode API.
Program that calls the kernel through the current 16-bit real mode API
will get an emulation (like complex permissions systems parsed to a simple
"doesn't exist" (for file for which the user has no permissions),
"read-only" and "read/write", depending on the users rights. A bit like
OS/2 native calls and it's INT 21h services...

> If you want backward compatibility, FAT is there to be used.  If you
> want long filenames, VFAT or ext2 is there.  If you want to be Win95-
> compatible, use VFAT.  If you insist on cast-sensetivity, use ext2.
> We can enhance FAT if we want to, of course, but I don't really see
> the need.

OpenDOS/16 will probably get hardcoded FAT and optional VFAT driver (or
maybe hardcoded too) and nothing else. OpenDOS/32, should get installable
file systems without any problems...

> Having said that, Tim Bird's mention of an OO FS intrigues me.  That's
> an enhancement that may be worth making.  I would love to see this idea
> fleshed out.

I think this is quite away from DOS for now! We'll see, we've got pretty
imaginative people in here! ;-)

Pierre Phaneuf

- Raw text -