Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 20:15:22 -0800 From: "Pedro Giffuni S." <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Other filesystems under FreeBSD Message-ID: <32B4CCDA.D64@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> References: <199612152211.PAA24071@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: > > > You also seem a bit confused about what I said, vs. what I meant. > This is probably my fault, so I'll clarify a bit. > Yes I was, thanks for clarifying. > > If you find you have specific questions on implementation that aren't > answered in the Heidemann thesis in the FICUS project directory on > ftp.cs.ucla.edu, or in the book "The Design and Implementation of the > 4.4BSD Operating System", then send me mail. If I don't already > have the answer archived, I will find one for you (the SCO FS's are > rather important; HPFS has been dropped from BT 4.x and so is about > as important as OS/2: not very). > Thanks for the links, the only document I had was the thesis used to implement SYSV under Linux. Paul Monday said there it was easy to implement due to Linux´s FS structure, so I (incorrectly) assumed Linux was better. My interest in HPFS was due to WinNT´s support for that filesystem (Microsoft also has his hands dirty on that): I am not interested in NTFS, so the decent option seemed HPFS. Both MS and IBM agree that HPFS is better than FAT, but only OS2 can format HPFS, which makes it almost useless. Perhaps before killing by system I should play to convert our FAT to VFAT , that way I´ll learn more in the process (and erase win95). best regards, Pedro. > Regards, > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32B4CCDA.D64>