From: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:04:03 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca To: "Colin W. Glenn" cc: "'OpenDOS newsgroup'" Subject: Re: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32? In-Reply-To: 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 Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Colin W. Glenn wrote: > > > > 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); > > > } > > > > Here you go. (see attachment) > > int main() > { > pipe(email(attachment,DL),bustdocs(gzip(&DL))) > } Your pseudocode is becoming more difficult to understand. :o) > > module. I'm not willing to give up an extra partition just to > > boot an OS. DOS boots very easily now, and so does Linux. By > Personally, I would, (my preference), and I'd like to be able to call the > next partition 'C' rather than go through my some 2000 program and locate > every reference to drive C and change it to D. Sure, the first disk will always be C:. That makes sense, and I'm sure that it will always be the case no matter what comes out. > > > > personally that I'll want a TOTALLY 100% ext2 system when ext2 > > > Your preference. > > And anyone else who has ever used ext2 as well. What FS do you > > prefer? The only viable candidates IMO are ext2, HPFS, and NTFS. > > Ok, the truth pops out. I know FAT. I think I understand HPFS, though > it's been years since I read anything on that, (MAC, right?). The only Ahh! So you've never _used_ a superior FS! That explains it! HPFS is OS/2's native FS (not MAC). NTFS is Windows NT's native FS. I've got a text file that TOTALLY describes HPFS and all the cool things that make it work if you'd like to read up on it. HPFS was designed from the ground up to solve ALL of the problems related to the FAT filesystem, as well as making up for deficiencies in other filesystems. ext2 is based on HPFS and NTFS I believe. ext2 supports long filenames (up to 240 chars I think), you can use any character in the filenames including spaces (although I've yet to see a file with spaces in the name intentionally), symbolic links, hard links, deeply nested directories, file permissions, ext2 is fast, and efficient, doesn't waste very much space on the disk for bookkeeping. ext2 doesn't need defragmenting as it "self" defragments as it goes along. If something happens to damage the filesystem, it is easily repaired. It is extensible, ie new features can easily be added like on the fly disk compression, encryption, access control lists, and much much more. > other FS which I know of but don't remember the name was a linked sector > list FS where each 512 byte sector had 500 bytes reserved for data, and > the 12 bytes were used for indexing to the next sector with a bit table > used to indicate unused sectors. The bootblock for this filesystem > consisted of the first several blocks as being reserved, they did not > conform to the filesystem. This was so the bootloader just had to copy > x-number of sectors to y-location in memory and transfer control. I'm not sure what FS that would be. Perhaps the C64 floppy? > I would love to be able to read up on other types of FS's. Well, if you want the HPFS spec doc, just let me know. I'll attach it to you. Also, I'll browse around for a more in depth description of ext2 as well. > > > > mount, and HOW they should be mounted (R/W, RO). This is most > > > This could also be established through a 'mount proceedure table'. > > Yes, I agree, it is called FSTAB, and is mounted from > > AUTOEXEC.BAT by the MOUNT /A command. > > Cool, once mounted as such, can you REMOUNT to different specs? You sure can. > > > Now give me a think tank..... It would take very smart piece of > Didn't catch the irony, look at W(%, it's supposed to be idiot proof. Yah, I thought that was a bit funny. Your shift key got stuck eh? > > code manually on the keyboard every time the computer reboots! > S-100 Boot! Toggle switches! OUCH!!!! > > A lot of viruses directly access the HD controller and can write > Hmmm, forgot, this would only prevent a certain percentage. Yep. There is no use putting AV code into the OS, as it would have to be updated every 10 minutes to remain on top, and since DOS doesn't trap direct hardware I/O, there would always be a way around the AV code. The result of adding AV code of any kind would just be to bloat the kernel unnecessarily. > > screwing around with it. Let's let Fprot handle the viruses, and > > let the MBR boot DOS directly. > > DOS? The whole point of making installable file systems in DOS > > is to allow you to read/write to the filesystems of OTHER > > I still wanna run Linux directly from DOS! ;] It'll never happen. Install Linux into your existing DOS FAT directory tree with the UMSDOS filesystem. Then use LOADLIN to load linux. This is as close as you're going to get. It is pretty easy to set up too. You just need 2 floppies, and the disk space to install linux. I used this method for almost 2 months and it works great if you can't make room for an ext2 partition. (UMSDOS is a hack for Linux to be able to use long filenames/symlinks/etc in a DOS directory. It has a control file in each directory called ---linux.--- which contains all of the information about symlinks, LFN's, permissions, etc) 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 Close windows, and OpenDOS! http://www.caldera.com/dos/dos.htm