From: Richard Dawe <richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: gdb problem or just silly me - please help
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 20:02:49 +0100
Organization: Customer of Planet Online
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <39170F59.91B2F833@bigfoot.com>
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 10005071332080 DOT 868-100000 AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000508111118 DOT 1993G-100000 AT is> <0oidhsovvtqs9ga2fnfoqar6vphbpdspo2 AT 4ax DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-4.adderall.dialup.pol.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news6.svr.pol.co.uk 957820553 10429 62.136.76.4 (8 May 2000 21:15:53 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 May 2000 21:15:53 GMT
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Damian Yerrick wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 8 May 2000 11:11:35 +0300 (IDT), Eli Zaretskii
> <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
> >
> >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.
> 
> That LFN support is tied to having Windows resident in RAM.

Really that's got nothing to do with the design of LFNs themselves or the
API itself. Microsoft chose not to _implement_ the LFN API under DOS.
That's a bad decision IMHO, but then they don't really care about DOS
anymore.

It could be argued that the method used to store LFNs in the FAT is ugly,
but it works (most of the time).

> Product tying is thought to be bad and to result in bloatware;

I'm not sure that this follows. Surely if you tie two products together,
you can reduce bloat, since they can be more tightly coupled? I think the
runaway development process might have more to do with bloat.

> hence the *n?x philosophy of "one tool for one job".

I think we're all aware of how easy it is to combine multiple Unix-ish
tools to get the job done. ;) After all, we're using lots of GNU tools
here!

Bye,

-- 
Richard Dawe
richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com ICQ 47595498 http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/