[TUHS] Mach for i386 / Mt Xinu or other

[jsteve@superglobalmegacorp.com (jsteve@superglobalmegacorp.com)]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2484 bytes --]

Yeah slices? A: b: c: d: e:?  But C: is the whole drive??? I had some really old BSD book that talks about needing 4 people to install a harddisk as they were so heavy, and talking about it’s massive ‘500MB’ capacity (Eagle drive on a VAX?) but it certainly didn’t fit in the DOS / OS/2 / Windows NT world.

And OS/2 was so much like MS-DOS needing to reboot and so clunky, while Windows NT let you partition at will, and even concatenating disks, or setting up software raid with absolute ease it made you wonder why it always was so difficult on anything else.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Wesley Parish
Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2017 7:14 AM
To: Larry McVoy
Cc: TUHS main list; Noel Chiappa
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Mach for i386 / Mt Xinu or other

Now that brings up another reason why I think Linux won. Most of the early Linux developers were 
educated partly in the MS/PC/DR DOS world. They wanted a Unix, but they had bought IBM PC clones 
with MS DOS and were familiar with the DOS way of doing things.

Linux's disk partitioning is very familiar to anyone who's familiar with the DOS way of disk partitioning. 
BSD's disk partitioning is a culture shock. (I know. I'd gotten used to the DOS way of doing things after 
learning about disk partitioning with my 486 and IBM OS/2 - the hard way. I tried Linux and the 
terminology was the same and due to a neat trick with the DOS filesystem I could experiment with it on 
an unchanged DOS system. I then tried FreeBSD and I didn't understand the terminology. So I stuck with 
what I'd learnt.)

FWLIW :)

Wesley Parish

Quoting Larry McVoy <lm at 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).
>  



"I have supposed that he who buys a Method means to learn it." - Ferdinand Sor,
Method for Guitar

"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." -- Samuel Goldwyn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170222/c6ab3bf2/attachment.html>