From: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:14:37 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca To: Mark Habersack cc: Jim Lefavour , opendos-developer AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net Subject: [opendos-developer] Re: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32? In-Reply-To: <199702022234.XAA11718@math.amu.edu.pl> Message-ID: 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, Mark Habersack wrote: Moved from [opendos]: > > > 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. > > > > Yes, we need to be in the competition with the other "DOS" systems, > > which of course includes WINDoze 95. So, unfortunately, we need to > > support FAT32. I am only an intermediate programmer, so can it be > > made so that the Linux Ext2FS is used with a "transparent" > > translation for programs expecting FAT32? That perhaps we could have > Sure, should be no problem with that. It just requires a good definition of > an independent API for dealing with *all* existing and future file systems > (maybe with an exception of VMS FS which is *really* weird). As much as VMS is weird, it does exist, and I think we should implement something that works for ALL FS's. There must be a simple way to put VMS LFN's into 8.3 format including version numbers. IE: use the Mach mangling and use the extension for version number info. FILENAMETHAT.ISAVMSFILENAME;34 would become something like FILEN~K4.034. DEC pathworks mounts VMS drives into DOS without a hitch. I doubt the source is available, but nonetheless someone will want to mount VMS volumes. We shouldn't be prejudiced against any OS in making OpenDOS better. Remember the "Open" part. > > (eventually) an FS that supports DOS programs, WINDOZE programs, and > > WIN95 programs simultaneously? With a User-customizable GUI... > Can be made the same way it is done on Linux: you just 'mount' the partition > with another file system on some directory (or rather, in DOS case, as a > separate drive - although it is possible to mount the partition as a subdir) > and use it transparently (at least user-wise). Yep, I think it should be possible to mount BOTH ways from the start. I mean I for one love mounting under a subdir, but hey, this is DOS, and I don't want to see drive letters disappear either. Both ways should be made possible from the start. > > > wait, I am getting ahead of things a bit here, aren't I? > Why? The worst thing is to make the first step: design the API, then it's > just a matter of implementing and testing it. Of course, it will take some > time, but with a whole community of users/programmers on the Net, testing and > improving it is much faster and reliable than inside *any* commercial > software company IMHO. I agree. The Open model is fairly new (in terms of a mass market OS anyway). If you look at the success of Linux, I think that it will work good 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 Visit my homepage if you want your Dynamic IP address on your webpage.