Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!watdragon!crocus!rtczegledi
From: rtczegledi@crocus.waterloo.edu (Richard Czegledi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: An IFF-based filesystem? (Re: Why do you need metaphor?)
Message-ID: <15892@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: 13 Aug 89 19:58:50 GMT
References: <7570@cbmvax.UUCP> <440@xdos.UUCP> <1417@bnr-fos.UUCP> <15863@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu
Reply-To: rtczegledi@crocus.waterloo.edu (Richard Czegledi)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 45
In article shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) writes:
>
>On 11 Aug 89 16:09:41 GMT,
>rtczegledi@crocus.waterloo.edu (Richard Czegledi) said:
>
>Richard> Something that I feel would be very useful (not to mention
>Richard> nice) is to give the amiga the ability to put 'files' under
>Richard> 'files'. Waterloo Port does something like that.
>
>4 months ago, I posted to comp.sys.amiga.tech about this very idea,
>albeit somewhat more thought out. I'm afraid I don't have a copy of
>the article I posted; only replies to it. (I have all articles I've
>posted since 6/28/89.) The article I posted was "Subject: An
>IFF-based filesystem?", posted to comp.sys.amiga.tech, message ID
>. If anyone has a copy of
>the article, please email it to me?
I can think of a few problems with your idea. Most are 'how 'ard is it to
implement and have work effectively' type. The main drawback to your
iff based file system is that the executable will have to modify itself,
thereby messing up many resident/ares/rez type programs.
Also, every single last program for the amiga will essentialy have to be
re-written. Now, if I left it at that, you would mail me saying,
"it would all be handled by the os, and transparent to the software".
But what about software like the (which I can not live without) disksalv,
and things like BAD (I like it), which think they 'know' about the file
systems. They will probably have to go. And the size/complexity of the OS
might just be too much to handle.
With a simple files under files approach like I mentioned, the os would not
have to be significantly changed. A file could be treated like a directory,
and you could directly load files/under the main file.
It's sort of like directories being files as well. The advantages would
be numerous. Hard drive maintenance, software instalation, and the general
look of the system would be pretty great.
When you mention, 'my system was a lot more thought out than yours', you
obviously did more thinking about your method (which is neat, cool, and
rather boffo, but tough to implement). The system I'm refering to
is already sort of implemented in other operating systems. It would offer
about the same functionality as your system too (I think). Also, I have
used this files under files approach, and find it to be quite flexable
powerful, and fun.