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.