Date:	Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:26:53 RST
From:	ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru (-= ArkanoiD =-)
Reply-To:	ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru
Message-Id:	<512@mpak.convey.ru>
To:	physmsa AT cantua DOT canterbury DOT ac DOT nz
Cc:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: disk devices (was ls, killing disk 0)
Organization:	International Brownian Movement
Lines:	35
MIME-Version:	1.0

nuqneH,

In message <199710210501 DOT SAA00988 AT cantua DOT canterbury DOT ac DOT nz> physmsa AT cantua DOT canterbury DOT ac DOT nz (Mr M S Aitchison) writes:

> OpenDOS doesn't come with a "dd" command, so having a filename you can
> copy sectors to/from isn't going to be useful unless somebody supplies
> something like dd as well 

It is a part of GNU utilites set which is a _must_ for any true Open system ;)

> - at which time we have to ask: what is the
> advantage of this over (say) DISKCOPY???

More powerful and more flexible.

> If you can show me some situations where access to the file is better
> than some command like DISKCOPY or a specially written program I'd be
> interested.  (I'm just glad I don't have to implement it :-)

About dd:
Just re-read dd manual page. It is self-explaining: it has numerous data
conversion and handling options.

About device access in general:
It is flexible: if you have a program that works with such a device file
you a) don't care how does the system handle it: it could be disk drive,
a tape or something different - nothing changes b) you can add anything
like on-the-fly encryption by will c) it looks good ;) d) it brings more
unix compatibility and makes program porting easier - the advantage of any
true Open system ;)

-- 
                                       _     _  _  _  _      _  _
   Must be a visit from the dead..     _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ |_ |_
   CU in Hell ..........  Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o |_||_||_|

- Raw text -