Date: Wed, 7 May 97 17:22:36 MDT Message-Id: <9705072322.AA19846@rgfn.epcc.Edu> From: bd733 AT rgfn DOT epcc DOT Edu (Jason M. Daniels) To: NukeEmUp AT ThePentagon DOT com Subject: Re: EXT2 filesystem information Cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com Reply-To: bd733 AT rgfn DOT epcc DOT Edu Precedence: bulk >I can't let this go unchallenged. Neither can I. :) >> The most powerful and open operating system available. > >Most powerful? Nope. For some jobs, VMS is more useful (I assume >that's what you mean by powerful?) For some, Win95 is more useful, >for some DOS is more useful, ... Useful? It depends. I think he meant powerful as in 'let's you do the most quickest' or something. >The most open? Please, Mr. AT&T, let me have the sourcecode! I >can't? Oh well, I guess it's not that open then. Even OpenDOS is >more open! You want the source? There's Linux source availible at sunsite.unc.edu. As for true Unix source, I'm not sure if there is any, but I'm sure there's something floating about; GNU perhaps? >Seriously, having sourcecode is not wonderful in itself. Only a few >developers need it (even if the hordes _want_ it for the perceived >cool factor). My job would not be simplified if I had the sourcecode >for the operating systems I use. The source allows you to fix bugs (yourself or with a vendor patch... think about: just download some diff files and fix five hundred bugs in the *nix-World as opposed to paying $200 (or whatever) for Microsoft's 'Bug-Fixes' that fix one or two bugs and create hoardes more), add features, and otherwise customize the operating system. Isn't this the whole reason we're excited about OpenDOS? Anyone can have DOS, but it's a DOS user's ultimate dream to be able to fix some of the shit in the code. >> The OS for which >> C was created. The OS which gave us pipes and I/O redirection. The OS >> which gave us a choice in shells. The OS that gave us the "device looks >> like a file" concept. The OS which gave us all this and more.... > >Yes, it has a wonderful history. So did the Holy Roman Empire. Your >point is? Umm, the point is it's an excellent operating system. Or did you miss that? >Plan 9 takes the 'everything is a file' concept much further. Having >pipes and redirection is no longer a unique selling point either - >they're supported by all the other major OSes, including all those >from the House of Bill. Incorrect. When you 'pipe' in MeSsy-DOS, say with 'type foo | more', what actually happens is: type foo > sometempfile more < sometempfile which is not true piping. 'All the other major OSes'? Besides Microsoft's OSes, what other OSes are there that aren't Unix or Unix variants and aren't GUIs (which would be hard to impliment piping under, considering). >> Now, with Linux, the OS which gives us a choice. > >What choice? The choice between Dos/Windoze and Yet Another Unix >Clone? Wow! What a choice! Exactly. Before, there was no choice at all. You had to run some form of DOS. There was simply no other OS for personal computers. (Except MacOS, of course, if you want to even consider Macs to be computers... :) >> I'll be honest here -- I run Linux 24/7. The only time I run DOS (indeed, >> OpenDOS) is for apps that don't have a Linux counterpart (YET!). And, many >> of those I run under DosEMU. > >I'll say it again. There is no reason for me to use Linux. There's >no reason for me to use ANY Unix. Either at home or at work. Don't >get me wrong - I recognise that Linux is a wonderful product, but it >would NOT help me in my computing tasks. Why not? You wouldn't appreciate -true- long filenames, a -true- 32-bit environment, -true- multitasking, and other features of Linux? I don't personally have Linux on my computer (my hard drive crashes every other day, so I pretty much just keep DOS and communications software on it) and I feel the pain of DOS's crappy environment everyday. >> Now, back to the original point. ext2 is a very good file system. Source >> is available. Works quite well. Fast. Flexible. Let's not create >> another VFAT or other such abomination. > >I have yet to hear a convincing argument that VFAT or NTFS are so >evil. VFAT exists for a damned good reason (compatibility) and does >not give problems to most users. NTFS only lacks links, and is >streets ahead of ext2 when it comes to security features. I know little about NTFS, but VFAT is a Bad Thing(tm). First, it's embarassingly slow. Second, it uses some evil hacks of the original FAT system to do what it does. This actually can erase the compatibility of it. A friend of mine decided to install Win95, then tried to install it and wasn't totally successful, then tried to reinstall it. The Windows 95 setup program ITSELF choked on the long filenames accidentally left on his hard drive! As for NTFS having better security, please explain how this is so. >> Let's take something that works >> and leverage off it. Anything else (IMHO) would be a complete waste of >> time. > >ext2 is good - for a Unix filesystem. For DOS, though, it has some >undesirable features (such as thisfile!=ThisFile) and is lacking some >of the features which may be desirable (such as custom sort-orders >and a more flexible security model). Why is case sensitivity such a bad thing? I think I know why; people simply aren't used to it. Personally, I've never in my life typed a capital letter at the DOS prompt (okay, maybe that's slight hyperbole, but when I create directories or files, I don't type things like 'mKdIR AdIr' and thus I would never have problems trying to acces it again). >> Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question. The answer is No. > >I paraphrase: > "it pains me to hear unsupported crap like that, most of which >comes from people who have never actually USED Win95/NT for a real >task. The Unix FUD engine at work." > I have used Windows 95. Quite extensively during some of my jobs. And I can most definetly agree with the writer above when he says that Microsoft is not the answer. Later, Jason -- Jason Daniels -- bd733 AT rgfn DOT epcc DOT edu Commodore 64 forever!