From: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 04:57:33 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca To: Mark Habersack cc: OpenDOS Mailing List Subject: [opendos-developer] Re: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32? In-Reply-To: <199702060027.BAA19075@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 Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Mark Habersack wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Since programs that are FS specific don't make sense on other > > FS's then there is no need for them. For example. Norton Disk > Still, you can't expect every user to know that. Remember that programers are > just a small part of the computer users community. What about all those > ladies in banks, post offices, etc? (no offense!) Yes, but ext2 WILL become a reality, and WONT work with Norton because it doesn't need defragging and the FS is totally different anyway. A user that decides to use ext2 will HAVE to read the documentation and find that out. Otherwise it is their own stupidity for running SPEEDISK on ext2. It won't damage the system, but it wont work either. If someone can't RTFM, then I don't have any sympathy for them. > > Doctor. If you ran that on an ext2 drive, not only would you get > > errors from NDD, but it would't work either. There would be no > > need for NDD either. Unless of course symantec released NU for > > ext2. > You're kidding, right? ;-) Symantec for *free* system? heh,heh - and where's > the money? ;-)) I was kidding. I doubt we'll see any more DOS development coming from the Norton name. > > > DEVICE="C:\System Folder\OpenDOS\Memory Manager" > > > DEVICEHIGH="C:\System Folder\OpenDOS\FAT16 Driver" > > > > ICK!!!!! Filenames with spaces in them are annoying!!!! Also, > > just because there ARE LFN's (or will be), it doesn't mean that > > they SHOULD be used all of the time! ie > > > > C:\BIN, C:\SYS\DOS\FAT, C:\SYS\DOS\MM > > > > These names are good enough. Who want's a 10k PATH? Who wants > You're right, LFNs are good for archive names and documents or directories - > system util/drivers names should be as short as possible. Tell that to Micro$loth!!!! > > > > 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. > > > > Rather, one should have the choice. In Linux, I've got minix, > > ext2, MSDOS, UMSDOS, compiled INTO the kernel, and VFAT, ISO9660, > > and others compiled as loadable modules. This way I can choose > > what I think is important. > Hmm... I think you're right. But the default for the system dist should be: > one FS compiled into the kernel, all the others as loadable modules (again, > for *users* not programmers) Yes, I would make the default kernel have FAT just like it does now. Also, I would include a kernel with ext2 AND FAT support built in, and possibly one with just ext2. This would be very easy to do, and would save 99% of all users from having to compile their own kernel.. Also, I'd precompile modules for all of the other FS's so that no compilation is necessary. This would work great for both users AND programmers. > > C or ASM is fine. I personally would prefer that DOS code is > > written in ASM as much as possible though. Reason: SIZE!!!!! I > Right, ASM is required here. After all we don't have to think about porting > the system to other HW platforms, do we? Nope. Especially not the DEC rainbow. :o) > > have a 19k mouse driver. My friend's mouse driver is 9k. They > > are both dated from the same time. Why is mine 19k? Probably > > because it is written in C! (It is, I've examined it's memory > > wastage in memory with debug). > Where's the golden art of writing big apps in assembler...? Beats me. I havent coded RAW assembler on a large app in over 2 years. 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 DOS must have's: 4DOS 5.50c ftp://ftp.std.com/vendors/jpsoft