From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: lm@mcvoy.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:32:56 -0800
Subject: [TUHS] Mach for i386 / Mt Xinu or other
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.02.1702211526080.10391@frieza.hoshinet.org>
References: <20170221120218.E07BA18C10B@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
 <20170221164728.GZ20341@mcvoy.com>
 <CAC20D2O5q5b2RsyiR41Cpy67GaPvXdOrc3_U=1tfJ=7TJTRcdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170221192124.GO20341@mcvoy.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.02.1702211526080.10391@frieza.hoshinet.org>
Message-ID: <20170221203256.GF3250@mcvoy.com>

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 03:28:13PM -0500, Steve Nickolas wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Larry McVoy wrote:
> 
> >In terms of crash worthyness, ext2 was better.  I think the ext2 people
> >took the approach that they wanted to be as robust as dos but with
> >performance.  And they made it, it's some very nice work.
> 
> Wouldn't "as robust as DOS" be a *bad* thing?

The DOS file system, while stupid, was very robust in the face of crashes
(sort of had to be, he says slyly).