Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ulysses!hector!eric
From: eric@hector.UUCP (Eric Lavitsky)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: FaccII patch for HardDisks
Message-ID: <10142@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 9 Mar 88 19:52:39 GMT
References: <555@io.UUCP> <10116@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <AW=6c-y00Xo8A4y1oY@andrew.cmu.edu> <10132@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <3422@cbmvax.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: eric@hector (Eric Lavitsky)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 31

In article <3422@cbmvax.UUCP> steveb@cbmvax.UUCP (Steve Beats) writes:
<In article <10132@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> eric@hector (Eric Lavitsky) writes:
<>
<>With the advent of FFS it seems that such a product would be wasted effort.
<>For most people's purposes (single fairly slow drive, few multiple task
<>disk access and FFS with buffers), FFS will be fine. A product written for
<>the slow file system (SFS) would not work under the FFS. ........
<>
<>Eric
<>
<
<I beg your pardon?  ANY application written for the old file system will work
<with FFS.  Applications don't give a toss about the disk layout, they just
<ask for files from the disk via the filesystem.  Since FFS supports all of
<the old packet types and returns the same results there are no compatibility
<problems.  (Except maybe the packets come back too fast :-)
<
<	Steve

Steve -

 By saying "A product written for", I was referring to a "Facc product", which
does give a toss about the disk layout. Sorry if there was any confusion here,
I didn't mean to knock FFS in any way - looks like you did a good job with it.

Eric

ARPA:	eric@topaz.rutgers.edu		 "Lithium is no longer available
UUCP:	...{wherever!}ulysses!eric	  on credit..."
	...{wherever!}rutgers!topaz!eric		- from Buckaroo Banzai
SNAIL:	34 Maplehurst Ln, Piscataway, NJ 08854