Re: New file system IDs and others.

[Julian Reschke-FJR010 <Julian_Reschke-FJR010@email.mot.com>]

kellis@primenet.com%INTERNET wrote:

> >> Handle Background DMA like in magic? "magic does it already blah blah
> >> with Hddriver blah" , Does it even work in the so perfect Magic OS?
> >> OS of the excellence. I have read and did try myslef. That ain't
> >> working well at all. Many / most of the people have this option
> >> disabled as it is way too slow.
> >
> >That might be the case. However it's definitively not the fault
> >of the interface MagiC is using for this.
> Where is the problem coming from then? HDDRIVER? I don't understand.
> Why would we support Background DMA the magic way, if even in magic it
> doesn't even work properly.

Because the design itself is ok. So if there really is a problem
with background DMA under MagiC, then having a second OS supporting
a similar interface will make it much easier to find a possible
problem.

That's the beauty of open interfaces.


> >> Magic if it doesn't bring anything good? am I missing something
> >> obvious?
> >
> >Seems so.
> heheh , you are not a very good sales person. Tell me the real goods
> of magic. Might enlighten me.
> 
> Please, Lets have MiNT to follow Magic, YES, but if it is worth it.
> Making MiNT to be magic would be a mistake, a very big mistake.
> If shared lib implementation in magic is good, see genious. ok, GOOD,
> let's follow that. But let's not just do that because magic has, mint
> has to have it, for the sake of compatibility.

Hmmm, with whom are you arguing? I don't think anybody said that
the MagiC shared lib scheme should be implemented *instead* of a better
mechanism. The question was: with MagiC's attempt of doing shared
libs being so trivial, would it make sense to support it as well?

Regards, jr