From: Tim Bird Message-Id: <199705012358.RAA19739@caldera.com> Subject: Re: A few FS notions To: dfremlin AT facstaff DOT wisc DOT edu (John Fremlin) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 17:58:50 -0600 (MDT) Cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com In-Reply-To: from "John Fremlin" at May 1, 97 04:45:19 pm Content-Type: text Precedence: bulk > > "Tim Bird" typed: > >(as if they came from the directory entry). Physically, I would store > >them not in the dir entry but in a separate data file in the file system. > > Another file? All these little files are very inefficient with the > MS-DOS file cluster system (file sizes have to be a multiple of the > cluster size, so that a 100 byte file may take up 4KB of disk space). True, this would be something that required some solving. > > >Note that this would require a new file scanning call in the OS, to > >retrieve a reference to this other file (and/or a call to get an attribute > >value by name). > > > >> - Control/access attributes > >> - Date/time stamps > > How about LFNs (Long File Names) or file descriptions? Yes. > > >[etc.] > > > >Tim Bird > > > But this is all a bit pre-emptive. Already we're making suggestions > about reorganizing the basic filesystem while the OpenDos utils > are still markedly inferior to MS-DOS's: > 1) The dir command doesn't give the total bytes allocated > in a directory and doesn't recurse Have you looked at xdir - it is easily superior than anything in MS-DOS. > > 2) The EDIT program is very slow [on my 386] and doesn't let > me highlight from the keyboard. How about a nice, simple > text-mode based editor instead of a Windows GUI > imitation without the power of the Windows GUI. > > 3) There is no QBASIC > > 4) There is no 'deltree' see xdel > > > I think 4DOS compatablity is more important than screwing up the > file system. That can come after. Most of these are 'pie-in-the-sky' ideas, but fun to toss around. I'd agree with your prioritization. Tim Bird