From: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:03:22 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
To: jdashiel AT eagle1 DOT eaglenet DOT com
cc: jamesl AT albany DOT net, OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
Subject: Re: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32? 
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NXT.3.95.970202001730.27399C-100000@eagle1>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970202100233.5878Y-100000@capslock.com>
Organization: Total disorganization.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 2 Feb 1997 jdashiel AT eagle1 DOT eaglenet DOT com wrote:

> Why not make the fat 32 an I.F.S?  Then this way if it's
> supplied users can decide which way they'd like to go.

That's what I've been saying all along!  Which brings up the point:

Is anyone currently working on an IFS for DOS?


Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |    My webpage has moved and my address has changed.
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca

LINUX: What changed from 2.0.27 to 2.0.28?  I don't notice anything.