Message-Id: <199702022234.XAA13954@math.amu.edu.pl> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Mark Habersack" Organization: What? (Poznan, Poland) To: dg AT dcs DOT st-and DOT ac DOT uk Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:39:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32? Reply-to: grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl CC: OpenDOS Mailing List In-reply-to: <510.9702020407@dufftown.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk> References: grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl's message of Sun, 02 Feb 97 04:02:10 +0100. <199702020303 DOT EAA23558 AT math DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl> Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net Precedence: bulk Once upon a time (on 2 Feb 97 at 4:07) dg AT dcs DOT st-and DOT ac DOT uk said: > [...] > >> If we're going to change operating system, can we at least change > >> operating system to a *decent* one, like MinixFS or Ext2FS? FAT32 is > >> another gross hack on top of VFAT which is a gross hack on top of FAT16 > >> which is a gross hack on top of FAT12 which wasn't a decent file system > >> when it was *developed*, let alone these days. It doesn't even have > >> automatic defragmenting! > >All true, but OpenDOS will *have to* stay compatible with FAT, and if we > >want it to be *the best*, then we have to support FAT32 as well. > [...] > > Sure. Compatibility is Good. But I'm talking about the root file system, the > one that's built into the kernel. There's no reason why you can't have > FAT16, FAT32, HFS etc as drivers, like Linux does. But why should we have to > use something as awful as FAT16 *as default*? It was a looooong line - can tap RET more often? ;-)) Answer: no, we can't make the root FS other than FAT or compatible. Why: because many DOS utilities are being used that *do* expect the FS to FAT. At many times we don't even realize that this or that application relies on the file system. In fact, DOS wasn't meant to be a multi-FS OS, so no programmer wrote his *DOS* app with that in mind. And you cannot require all the users change their beloved programs (if it's possible at all) just because we changed the root FS. > DEVICE="C:\System Folder\OpenDOS\Memory Manager" > DEVICEHIGH="C:\System Folder\OpenDOS\FAT16 Driver" > DEVICEHIGH="C:\System Folder\OpenDOS\FAT32 Driver" > DEVICEHIGH="C:\System Folder\OpenDOS\ISO9660 Driver" > INSTALL="C:\System Folder\OpenDOS\Disk Cache Driver" 1024 16384 Don't you think it's a bit wasteful to load all the drivers beforehand? A utility to mount/unmount the new FS should be created - just like in Unix. > I've written a (slightly dodgy) file system for Linux, and I've wanted to do > the same for DOS. The only things that hampered me were (a) total lack of > documentation of how to write file system drivers for DOS, and (b) a sinking > feeling as I realised I would have to do it in i86 assembly... a) Yes, that's right. The only IFS documentation I know of is in the Ralph Brown's Interrupt List, and it's IMHO insufficient to write an IFS driver. It's easier to do that with Win95 as the VxD IFS interface is clearly documented, but who wants (of us ;-)) to help improving an M$ product? ;-) b) Why assembly? If you don't like it - don't use it! Look at Linux - how many parts of it are in assembly? Look at FreeDOS - it's all in C. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wipe the tears from your eyes, wipe the sweat from your thighs Don't cry to me with sentiment, my laughter drowns your cries You're a memory trapped on polaroid, a puppet drawn on celluloid So drink the wine, confess your sin, just floatsam in a silent mind! ---- Visit http://ananke.amu.edu.pl/~grendel