From owner-freebsd-fs Wed Dec 13 13:59:05 1995 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA28512 for fs-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 13:59:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from seraglio.staidan.qld.edu.au (staidans.client.uq.edu.au [130.102.39.106]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA28488 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 13:58:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from aidan.staidan.qld.edu.au (aidan.staidan.qld.edu.au [203.12.39.2]) by seraglio.staidan.qld.edu.au (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id HAA08105 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 07:59:05 +1000 Received: from AIDAN/SpoolDir by aidan.staidan.qld.edu.au (Mercury 1.21); 14 Dec 95 07:59:05 -1000 Received: from SpoolDir by AIDAN (Mercury 1.21); 14 Dec 95 07:58:44 -1000 From: "Peter Stubbs" Organization: St Aidan's A.G.S. To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 07:58:40 -1000 Subject: IS anyone out there? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Message-ID: <3F71D70CDF@aidan.staidan.qld.edu.au> Sender: owner-fs@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Hi all, I've been subscribed to this list for a couple of months now, and never had any mail. Is it just me, or is there nothing to talk about in the freebsd filesystem world? Are we on a 6 month digest cycle? If there's nothing to talk about, then I'd like to ask about the status of the MSDOS-fs support. Is it true that freebsd will mangle a dos filesystem if it's mounted RW? What can I do about it? Cheers, Peter Peter Stubbs, St Aidan's AGS. ph +61-07-3379-9911, fax +61-07-3379-9432 From owner-freebsd-fs Wed Dec 13 14:50:54 1995 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA01862 for fs-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:50:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA01855 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:50:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <30743-2>; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:53:05 -0000 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:52:57 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius To: Peter Stubbs cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IS anyone out there? In-Reply-To: <3F71D70CDF@aidan.staidan.qld.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-fs@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 14 Dec 1995, Peter Stubbs wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been subscribed to this list for a couple of months now, and > never had any mail. > > Is it just me, or is there nothing to talk about in the freebsd > filesystem world? Are we on a 6 month digest cycle? > > If there's nothing to talk about, then I'd like to ask about the > status of the MSDOS-fs support. Is it true that freebsd will mangle a > dos filesystem if it's mounted RW? What can I do about it? Upgrade... perhaps. This bug may be gone in -stable or -current Tom From owner-freebsd-fs Wed Dec 13 15:58:24 1995 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA07682 for fs-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 15:58:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from Aspen.Woc.Atinc.COM (Aspen.Woc.Atinc.COM [198.138.38.205]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA07670 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 15:58:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jmb@localhost) by Aspen.Woc.Atinc.COM (8.6.12/8.6.9) id SAA19896; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:57:53 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:57:51 -0500 (EST) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" X-Sender: jmb@Aspen.Woc.Atinc.COM To: Peter Stubbs cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IS anyone out there? In-Reply-To: <3F71D70CDF@aidan.staidan.qld.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-fs@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 14 Dec 1995, Peter Stubbs wrote: > I've been subscribed to this list for a couple of months now, and > never had any mail. many of these questions go to freebsd-questions. this list just never heated up > If there's nothing to talk about, then I'd like to ask about the > status of the MSDOS-fs support. Is it true that freebsd will mangle a > dos filesystem if it's mounted RW? What can I do about it? yes, that is my understanding, but i have never done it. Jonathan M. Bresler FreeBSD Postmaster jmb@FreeBSD.ORG play go. ride bike. hack FreeBSD.--ah the good life i am moving to a new job. PLEASE USE: jmb@FreeBSD.ORG From owner-freebsd-fs Sat Dec 16 14:09:14 1995 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA05385 for fs-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 1995 14:09:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de (gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de [137.226.31.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA05374 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 1995 14:09:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kuku@localhost) by gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de (8.6.11/8.6.9) id XAA10433 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Sat, 16 Dec 1995 23:08:59 +0100 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 23:08:59 +0100 From: "Christoph P. Kukulies" Message-Id: <199512162208.XAA10433@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Macintosh filesystem features Sender: owner-fs@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk I was reflecting about a featute that the MacOS has and which I did not see on other OSs: The DATA and the RESOURCE fork. I don't know if this is patented and why it has not been adopted by other filesystems. Not even in Win95 (though this doesn't actually say much :) you can find this feature. At least I believe it is not possible to add an arbitrary resource to an arbitrary file (like a bitmap). (One can link an .rbj to an .exe, though but that's all) At most to a certain extension like .doc to Word files and so on. What I'm asking myself (and file system experts) if this could be implemented in FreeBSD, perhaps as an addition/extension to the existing filesystems. When designing GUIs, window managers and such it would be nice if this resource/data dualism would be hidden rather than having sort of container files or other methods like .hidden files or files starting with special characters (%). Comments? --Chris Christoph P. U. Kukulies kuku@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de From owner-freebsd-fs Sat Dec 16 16:22:17 1995 Return-Path: owner-fs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id QAA12797 for fs-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 1995 16:22:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA12787 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 1995 16:22:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <30760-3>; Sat, 16 Dec 1995 16:24:36 -0000 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 16:24:34 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius To: "Christoph P. Kukulies" cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Macintosh filesystem features In-Reply-To: <199512162208.XAA10433@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Christoph P. Kukulies wrote: > I was reflecting about a featute that the MacOS has and which > I did not see on other OSs: > > The DATA and the RESOURCE fork. > > I don't know if this is patented > and why it has not been adopted by other filesystems. > Not even in Win95 (though this doesn't actually say much :) > you can find this feature. At least I believe it is not possible > to add an arbitrary resource to an arbitrary file (like a bitmap). > (One can link an .rbj to an .exe, though but that's all) > At most to a certain extension like .doc to Word files and so on. I think Apple probably regrets this "feature", because: - Most files, have a resource fork and an empty data fork (executables), or a data fork and an empty resource fork (documents), rendering the distinction rather pointless. (The only exception that I can think of, is Nisus, which saves document text in the data fork, and formatting in the resource fork) - Makes file transfers to other systems difficult > What I'm asking myself (and file system experts) if this > could be implemented in FreeBSD, perhaps as an addition/extension > to the existing filesystems. > > When designing GUIs, window managers and such it would be nice if this > resource/data dualism would be hidden rather than having sort of > container files or other methods like .hidden files or files > starting with special characters (%). Shouldn't these things be stuffed into the executable file? On Macs, all code and resources is stuffed into the resource fork of the executable anyways, and the data fork is empty. Tom