Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 16:44:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
To: JP Morris <b52g AT usa DOT net>
cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: BIG suggestion for Opendos Features
In-Reply-To: <19970505165220.8085.qmail@mx01.netaddress.usa.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970505163826.9545V-100000@capslock.com>
Organization: Total disorganization.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On 5 May 1997, JP Morris wrote:

> >> One of the things that bothered me about normal dos, opendos, win95 and
> >> such is that there are no drivers to access the Linux ext2 file system.
> >> That filesystem is faster and more efficient, and would make a great
> >> addition to Opendos as a driver so that people who use MSdos or W95 could
> >> still use it.  Dos drivers are something I've never gotten into, but I'm
> >> sure people on this list would be knowledgable about it.
> >
> >We've discussed this quite a bit on the list allready, and I'm
> >sure that before too long ext2 will be a natural progression
> >under OD.
> >
> ><DROOL>
> >Native ext2 with symlinks, hardlinks, case sensitivity, self
> >defragmentation, speed, permissions, uid's/gid's, etc...
> 
> Don't overwhelm the poor users with too much complexity.
> As for UNIX permissions, either we inhert the unpleasant
> CHMOD with its 3-levels of security that force the user
> to think in octal, or we invent some really twisted abbreviations.
> I thought the trend was to make things friendlier.

Poor users can stick with FAT if they like.  Others can use ext2
with FAT like permissions, others can use it with whatever they
like.  Why not?

> Personally I'd be happy to stick with RASH.

Then you would do just that.  I mean future programming shouldn't
break the past right?

As for CHMOD being octal, one never needs to use the octal
settings at all.  chmod u+r for example has nothing to do with
octal.  As far as that goes, ATTRIB could be extended to set
permissions as well.  You see, functionality and syntax are 2
different things.

> Also, I've yet to see a unix that can undelete files.
> One of the things I love about DRDOS and OpenDOS is the kickass
> undelete program that is menu driven and doesn't lose the first
> letter of the filename.

Well, any UNIX can undelete files if such a program is installed
on the system.  I've written my OWN undelete program which works
exactly like the DELETE sentry type of programs available in DOS
either MSDOS, or Norton's smartcan, etc....  Such programs are
WIDELY available over the internet as replacements to "rm", et
al.


Works great, and doesn't lose any part of the file, or the name.
And what has this to do with adding ext2 support to DOS?

Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |                  Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom...
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
Email: mharris at blackwidow.saultc.on.ca  <-- Spam proof address

URL: Art Bell - Coast to Coast AM        http://www.artbell.com