Return to BSD News archive
#! rnews 3184 sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!nntp.et.byu.edu!news.byu.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Slight flame from Linux user
Date: 5 Jun 1995 20:40:33 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <3qvq41$o8p@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <3ql3gd$je2@bell.maths.tcd.ie> <D9K4Iz.BJM@midway.uchicago.edu> <3qo2af$nqo@bell.maths.tcd.ie> <3qtbrv$36n@rover.village.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
imp@village.org (Warner Losh) wrote:
] In article <3qo2af$nqo@bell.maths.tcd.ie>,
] Timothy Murphy <tim@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
] >I look forward to the day when Linux and FreeBSD
] >can share the same file-system,
] >and we can all run both of them.
]
] You can sort of do this right now with *TWO* different file systems:
] iso-9660 and msdos. Both have their limitations, but you can share
] data this way. It is my understanding that it wouldn't be hard to
] hack the Win-95/Win-NT extended-FAT file system to allow for a better
] solution, but I don't know its status in either camp.
The UMSDOS file system can do Win95 style long name support.
The default is to run with "poop" files called --LINUX-.--- that
are system hidden files that are hidden in the mount name space.
The "poop" files contain permissions and long names, etc.
Personally, I'd have preferred a -UMSDOS-.--- name for portability
beyond the Linux environment.
Given their DOS boot and given LILO's capabilities, it's possible
to use this file system type as your root. A non-destructive
test drive installation without partitioning, etc. being required,
if you will.
BSD is real close to this capability by itself. It has net-boot
(bootp) remote boot capability and it has boot-from0within-DOS
capability (via a .COM file) that is actually superior to Linux's
in that it doesn't screw up when you have EMS installed (you can
make Linux have fits in the same situation).
Not to downplay Werner Almesberger's and Jacques Gelinas' work,
but it leaves a lot to be desired. Mostly block boundry and limit
problems that BSD's DOSFS doesn't have. Because of this, performance
is 4-6 times worse than that in BSD (yes, this is *after* the cache
and other fixes: before that, it was maybe 8 times slower).
BSD's DOSFS, on the other hand, doesn't do special case handling
of moves and renames, especially of directories, and has crashes
that Linux's doesn't have (if you insist on doing this type of
non-DOS operation on DOS file systems -- silly you).
Currently, you are limited to ISO9660, which Linux can write and
BSD can't, or MSDOS, which isn't sufficient, or UFS, which BSD
can write but Linux can't, or ext2fs, which Linux can write but
BSD can't (and which isn't generally available for BSD, and which
since I'm not working on it, I can't give you more information on).
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.