From:	hf AT Melog DOT DE (Hauke Fath)
Subject:	Re: pathname conversion
24 Sep 1997 01:11:58 -0700 :
Message-ID:	<3.0.1.32.19970924094946.009c9c20.cygnus.gnu-win32@meloghost.melog.de>
References:	<342805a5 DOT 12665793 AT smtp DOT netzone DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	jeffdbREMOVETHIS AT netzone DOT com
Cc:	"John R. Dennis" <jdennis AT sharpeye DOT com>, gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

At 18:30 23.09.97 GMT, Mikey wrote:
>Because Microsoft's programmers are IDIOTS, and 
>have been ever since 1982 when dos 1 came out

MSDOS would never have come off the ground without the possibility of
easily porting CP/M software (dBase, WordStar,...). DOS 1 was a verbatim
CP/M clone, and CP/M has drive letters and uses the forward slash "/" as a
command option tag. That's why DOS introduced the backslash as path separator.

>All of these file system features have been around 
>since before dos 1 was released, at first via a file system
>called minix, and more recently and in an even more advanced
>form called ext2, try installing a real OS, called linux.

When we say DOS 2 we are talking early eighties -- Xenix, 4.1BSD, AT&T Sys
V.2. Not even Berkeley Fast Filing System (iirc 1982/3), and definitely no
Linsux Ext2FFS.

At 16:45 23.09.97 -0400, John R. Dennis wrote:
>>>>>> "Mikey" == Mikey  <jeffdbREMOVETHIS AT netzone DOT com> writes:
>
>    Mikey> Because Microsoft's programmers are IDIOTS, and have been
>    Mikey> ever since 1982 when dos 1 came out...
>
>You listed a number of reason why DOS/Win32 is brain dead (no argument
>here) and why the UNIX solution is superior (once again no
>argument). But what you didn't do is answer my question, which was why
>are tools targeted for one environment not compatible with that environment?

Because DOS and its mates use as path separator what is an escape char to
UN*X tools. To change this, you'd have to touch virtually every UN*X tool
-- you'd lose compatibility with the UN*X software base while creating a
proprietary environment that isn't really compatible with the host
environment because it introduces features that have no match there.

>Am I in the minority when I suggest porting includes making the port
>compatible with the target environment?

The price of losing compatibility to UN*X (shell) scripts and tools would
be too high. You could then just as well stick with COMMAND.COM or 4DOS.

	hauke



-- 
Hauke Fath                              Melog Software GmbH
                                        D-69115 Heidelberg
hf AT Melog DOT DE                             Ruf +49-6221-1333-0, Fax -33

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".

- Raw text -