Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

1 a later, DOS fs enh committee, please report what you got (Developers)

posted by DOS386, 29.12.2008, 02:41

Japheth wrote:

> Hacks might be useful when IMPLEMENTING something,
> but they're NEVER useful when DESIGNING something.
Right, but does anything exist that was DESIGNED for DOS within last 10 years or ever ? :-D

> If you're unable to see the flaws of the FAT32+ "design"

Recheck the NTLFN / VFAT "design" 1st :-D

> Windows Explorer is a good sample for a "user-level" file manager
Maybe true, but off topic, unrelated and irrelevant here :-D

> make you aware that you are about to loose credit with your kind of "arguments".
Please finalize your "argument" now: to respect the overall credit preservation law, someone must gain credit this way, but who ? The president of the DOS filesystem enhancement committee, Steve ? Your twin friends Lucho+Iucho ?

> To extend DOS on such a sensible field reasonable persons with a mind
> open for criticism are needed.

Sure. I failed, so what better guys did you get since then ? Steve ? Your twin friends Lucho+Iucho ?

> They also must care about Windows and other OSes.
Sure. Cripple DOS for favor of Windows. :-D

> Support for external file systems is important
... or somewhat useful at least ...

> but DOS having a native format for files > 4 GB
is a must :-)

Steve wrote:

> If, say, a DOS EXE > 4GB is seen as multiple files,
> how would it be executed in Windows?
Not at all ?

> Might it be best to accept a max. size of (4G-1)
> bytes as the price of being able to use files in multiple OSes?
For you, YES.

Japheth wrote:

> Even without FAT32+ DOS is missing an API to position at
> file offsets > 4 GB. With NTFS4DOS, the Paragon drivers or
> similar things such large files are accessible for DOS apps.
> So the "API extension" part of FAT32+ is important
YES.

> even if FAT32+ itself might be crappy.
Maybe true, still less crappy than VFAT/NTLFN or NTSC4DOS hacks.

> based on FAT32
Why base on silly FAT28 at all ?

> and stable for other OSes is not proven yet to be impossible.
COOL.

> In such a concept one file > 4 GB will be seen as multiple files
> in Windows/Linux, all < 4 GB and all of course "perfectly valid".
Do you intend to delete the VFAT/NTLFN hack then ? Or do you have space for both at same time ?

> btw: IMO it might be a good idea to redesign even the API part of FAT32+,
> since the API extension has been placed into DOS' LFN function group
> (int 21h, ax=7142h), where it doesn't belong at all. A better place
> possibly would have been the FAT32 extensions (int 21h, ax=73xxh).
> And in the FAT32+ concept, the API needs a pointer to a 64bit value,
> which makes such a call unnecessary complicated for DOS extended programs.
> A simple int 21h call with the offset hold in registers (SI:DI:DX:CX?
> or maybe just DI:DX:CX?) would have been preferable.
All points right, all points fixed by me (not yet released, thus). :-)

sol wrote:

> So --- we're already adding support for a new filesystem.
> Why not do it right?
> Why base it off FAT, which is bad by design?
Right. So what did you get in the meantime ? :hungry:

> It's not efficient. It gets fragmented horribly. LFN was hacked in.
> If we're still using 28 bits of the FAT, iirc we're restricting
> ourselves to 2 TB for partition size.

Right. I fixed all those (not yet released, thus). :-)

Japheth wrote:

Who is "we"? Who adds support for a new file system in DOS?

Me. :-)

> I'm not aware of such efforts. There's no risk (or chance)
> that FreeDOS will get anything in this direction in the foreseeable future.
IIRC FreeDOS 1.1 is scheduled for beginning of 2008 :-(

> safe DOS extension, intended for all DOS users.
How many people do you see at risk ? :-D

sol wrote:

> Ahh, good idea, add FAT+ because it's easier than doing it the right way.
> That's a good way to write software.
Right. Any examples ? :hungry: Good and bad ? Let's see how many of yours are good and how many evil.

> What about HPFS? At least OS/2 used it, Linux can read/write it,
> and FreeBSD can at least read it.
No thanks. 20 years old junk, HFFS (Heavy Fragmentation File System), 2 GiB file, 2 TiB volume size limit, many flaws, no features, designed for OS/2 , ... ... :-( Please see the top argument of Japheth !!!

So, DOS filesystem enhancement committee president Steve and vice-presidents Japheth and sol, please report what you got :hungry:

---
This is a LOGITECH mouse driver, but some software expect here
the following string:*** This is Copyright 1983 Microsoft ***

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
21998 Postings in 2024 Threads, 395 registered users, 81 users online (0 registered, 81 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum