Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:41:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Colin W. Glenn" To: "'OpenDOS newsgroup'" Subject: Re: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32? In-Reply-To: <199702110412.AA04489@mail.crl.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net Precedence: bulk On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca wrote: > On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Colin W. Glenn wrote: Like a wild vine, sometimes a thread needs pruning and rearranging. I read what I wrote, and wondered where I got this hairbrained scheme from. > > It's _w_a_y_ past my bedtime here. > Mine too. :o) > 2) It's LINUX, not Lunix. Sorry I get that confused and forget whether it's i before u or u before me.. > If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to send you the INFO-SHEET, As long as it's short. void main() { if (sizeof(infosheet) < 10000) email(infosheet); } > > to %OPENDOSCFG%\FSTAB for later mounting by MOUNT in > > kernel, the file system drivers, and config.sys sit inside of their own > > private partition for booting purposes, then after booting, it calls the > Simple, because a hard disk is limited to 4 partitions, and you'd > be unnecessarily wasting one of those 4 partitions. I know Right, I know, but the advantage would be that the OS _is_ independant of the filesystem's which _need_ to be used. You should be able to set up so that _regardless_ of which shell system you work with, access's to different FS's should happen _transparently_, without the shell knowing what happens. > personally that I'll want a TOTALLY 100% ext2 system when ext2 Your preference. > my ext2 drives, I'd like to have the option of which drives to > mount, and HOW they should be mounted (R/W, RO). This is most This could also be established through a 'mount proceedure table'. > Also, Joe average can modify a text file easier than he can > partition his disk drive. Also, what if the drive is allready > partitioned? Does that mean you should destroy all OS's > currently on the drive? I think DOS should boot off of any > partition just like linux or any other OS worth its salt. True, DOS should operate like a true, independant OS, but it doesn't and that's thanks to singlemindedness. Now give me a think tank..... It would take very smart piece of software to 'shift' partitions about, it would have to recognize the various types of FS's and OS's within the partition to be able to meddle with the various tables which the systems used,.. Can be done. > It is SIMPLE, and is hardly trouble. The CONFIG.SYS method is > also fairly simple to implement (although I find it inferior). > > NEXT partition C: . > > This would also baffle virus's, until they catch up. > I don't see how virii would be effected at all. Virii reside in > the executable files and are written to them via DOS calls. They If the kernel is constructed so that the _next_ partition is drive C, then for everything to work properly, it would have to hook into the BIOS's disk access interrupt. Which means that partition 'C' would have a boot record, but it's never used, and any tampering with the MBR would get caught. > > This would allow you to create different filesystems for different > > purposes, and seeing as config.sys is isolated from whatever filesystem Ok, perhaps this was too much wishing for a unified OS. The Light. A Christian Web Site! HotSpot