Comments: Authenticated sender is <david AT diablo DOT eimages DOT co DOT uk>
From: "David Cantrell" <david AT diablo DOT eimages DOT co DOT uk>
To: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:09:21 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32?
Reply-to: david AT diablo DOT eimages DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <1357143438-14624721@diablo.eimages.co.uk>
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk

Ian AT darkblak DOT demon DOT co DOT uk wrote:

> dg AT dcs DOT st-and DOT ac DOT uk writes
>
> >The main thing that needs done, though, is the long filenames 
> >interface.
> >
> >This doesn't look too hard, now, does it? Come on, someone could write a TSR 
> >that implements it ...
> 
> TSR?  Are you on drugs?  It would be far better if we were to compile
> the components that you want into IBMDOS.SYS ...

Until the sources are available (and in a cleaned-up format) a TSR 
would be the way to go.  It would not then take much more work to 
move the relevant bits into the kernel at a later date.

The writing of such a TSR has been an occasional topic of discussion in 
comp.os.msdos.4dos over the last year, but nothing has come of it, 
perhaps because 4DOS is 'just a shell' and so not very 
kernel-hackerish.  With the input of the OpenDOS people, maybe 
something will happen.

> And perhaps also go along the lines of Linux and have loadable modules

Especially if they're UNLOADABLE as well.  No more of this rebooting 
rubbish whenever I change CONFIG.SYS or AUTOEXEC.BAT.  Maybe those 
charming guys 'n' gals at Microsoft could do the same with NT ;-)

-- David Cantrell, http://www.eimages.co.uk/users/davidc/

Power is both corrupting and dangerous when unchallenged and
concentrated in the hands of the majority.  Voices of tolerance
and compassion are easily drowned.
      -- Akbar S. Ahmed