Message-Id: <199702022234.XAA11595@math.amu.edu.pl>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
From: "Mark Habersack" <grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Organization: What? (Poznan, Poland)
To: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:39:42 +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 <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
References: <199702020421 DOT XAA26504 AT keeper DOT albany DOT net>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970202095152.5878W-100000@capslock.com>
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk

Once upon a time (on  2 Feb 97 at 9:53) mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on. said:

> As many people have said before:  Everyone has a favorite FS, or one
> that they need.  For these all to be properly placed into OpenDOS, an
> installable file system layer MUST be created otherwise we will end up
> with 10000 different API's that don't work together.  Even VFAT LFN's
> could be included via the IFS layer.  This would solve the problem
And so should be the 'native' FAT system.

> forever instead of waiting for M$ to put out yet another crappy
> filesystem.
...for the masses ;-(

---------- Visit http://ananke.amu.edu.pl/~grendel ------------
You're just a waste of time, you're just a babbling face, you're
just three sick holes that run like sores, you're fucking waste
you're like a slug on the floor, oh you're usless and ugly and
useless and ugly, and shiver and shake when I think of how you
make me hate.