Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!natinst!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: filenames and the kernel Message-ID: <17888@rpp386.cactus.org> Date: 8 Feb 90 13:26:16 GMT References: <17829@rpp386.cactus.org> <00000FN@cdis-1.UUCP> Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) Distribution: usa Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service Lines: 23 In article <00000FN@cdis-1.UUCP> tanner@cdis-1.UUCP (Dr. T. Andrews) writes: >From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) >) Early MS-DOS and CP/M didn't include directories. >Both CP/M and early MS-DOS not only included directories, but they >also included several syscalls to deal with them (on top of which you >might build opendir() and friends). Note functions 0x11 and 0x12 to >scan the directory. > >One directory per disk. To change current directory, use syscall 0x0E. >To get current directory, use 0x19. Sorry, I was referring to their lack of directory trees ala UNIX and friends. Virtually all operating systems which support some form of mass storage device support at least a single level directory. However, many do not support subdirectories. Most ancient OSs for PCs fall into that catagory. Subdirectories did not exist in the initial release of MS-DOS. It was not until 2.1 [ or something like that ] that more than one directory could exist per volume. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org