Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 11:11:35 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Kalum Somaratna <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gdb problem or just silly me - please help
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005071332080.868-100000@roadrunner.grendel.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000508111118.1993G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 7 May 2000, Kalum Somaratna wrote:

> On Sat, 6 May 2000, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > 
> > It's actually not so simple.  The LFN support that you use on Windows 9X
> > is the same code Windows itself uses to access files, albeit through a
> > backdoor.  In other words, the LFN API is simply an alternative entry
> > point into the Windows' native file I/O routines!
> > 
> > So, if Microsoft would want to add this support to DOS, they'd need to
> > rewrite the Windows file I/O code so that it would work inside DOS,
> > and then add that code to MSDOS.DOS and IO.SYS.
> 
> This shows just how well Micro$oft designs there software, right. ;-)

Sorry, I don't really see how did you arrive at that conclusion.

The addition of LFN functionality when Windows starts is analogous to
the additional functionality in, say, keyboard remapping that you get
on Unix when you start X.  I fail to see how does this reveal anything
(good or bad) about the design.