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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: jeffdbREMOVETHIS AT netzone DOT com Cc: "John R. Dennis" , 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 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".