Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!pro-houston.cts.com!dkl
From: dkl@pro-houston.cts.com (David Karl Leikam)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Problems for a new IIGS user (FST's)
Message-ID: <2634.cortland.info-apple@pro-houston>
Date: 15 Nov 89 02:17:29 GMT
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 34

In-Reply-To: message from mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com

 In CS-ID: #2634.cortland/info-apple@pro-houston, mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com
(Morgan Davis)  writes In-Reply-To: message from mattd@apple.com

>I can definitely see Apple's argument of revealing the details of FST
>construction as a big "no no" when you're talking about existing file system
>formats (i.e. DOS 3.3).  What about 3rd parties who want to design new file
>systems (i.e. UNIX)?

  And I guess that again, I have a problem with consistency. (My little mind's
favorite hobgoblin, I suppose...)

  But look: in the search for alternative devices and operating systems, you
cannot hold things back - they're going to happen. Let Apple publish the
current FST guidelines, be they ever so strict, and see what can be done out
in the wide world.

  I grant you Apple Computer is a repository of much of the rational thought
about personal computers in the western world, but surely it's not the only
one?  Let us see what, say, a Roger Wagner, or even (shudder) a jabernathy,
can do within those guidelines?

  And if it's the case that they must be SO strictly drawn that little or no
development of that kind is possible, then I must ask, "Why have FST's, or the
capability for them, at all? If they can't be implemented, why waste the disk
space and time to store/access 'em as separate files, rather than embedding
the code into the rest of the O/S???"  If you can't use 'em, what good are
they?  If you _can_, let us see what use can be made!

  n'cest pas?
UUCP: crash!pro-houston!dkl
ARPA: crash!pro-houston!dkl@nosc.mil
INET: dkl@pro-houston.cts.com