Re: [MiNT] MiNTLib 0.52.3b

[josephus <catbird@airmail.net>]

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> > From: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]On Behalf
> > Of Martin-Eric Racine
> > Sent: Saturday, August 07, 1999 4:46 PM
> > To: Thomas Binder
> > Cc: MiNT List
> > Subject: Re: [MiNT] MiNTLib 0.52.3b
> >
> >
> > > I once implemented a solution where a new mint.cnf variable HIDEGEMDOS
> > > (also possible to be influenced via Ssystem()) offered the possibility
> > > to completely hide certain drive letters from U:\. Completely means that
> > > they /never/ would appear in U:\, i.e. no file attribute was used (but
> > > of course, the path remained accessible; i.e. although for example U:\a
> > > didn't appear in the output of ls, it was still possible to access
> > > U:\a\somefile).
> >
> > I like that approach.
> >
> 
> Again this breaks existing code which relies on the fact that all existing
> filesystems can be found on the root of u:\.


I have been following this discussion.  It seems that we 
are looking for the forrest and cant find it for the trees.

Operating systems have several different views of objects.
a physical view, a logical view and and a rational view.

The physical view usually involves a driver.  The logical
view is usually some kind of file descripter  like  '* FILE'
The other level is a rational veiw in which the system
tells the user that the file or unit or disk is in some
handy 'expresssion' that returns the directory of the
data.  /U  is not special, but we are confusing the
physical and the logical.   The system SHOULD  have
some method of inspecting and certifying devicess.  and 
putting things in /U is not useful 


as an example.   /U should have "hardware" links to the units.
and the hard system descriptors should be in /V which a user
should never look at or try to access.   There are lots of
systems that do this.  Even Linux is doing this.  The fact
is that if you mangle the system info,  The logical and 
rational levels become insane.  So for reliability,
the "system" should construct and maintain  information
about the devices.   The visible locations like /U or 
/etc or anywhere else are all treated the same way.
the problem is that internal view is made visible in /U
In practical terms  the internal view should be made available
to a system user ( super user) but not to a regular user.

The user should see some directory intry in /U.   Directory
intries can be copied and/or attached somewhere else.
The problem is not easy.   It looks like a "logical" redesign
of the structures and methods.   Clearly old TOS methods are
really at fault. and backward compatiblility leads to this
problem.

This is not a solution,  but just a suggestion.  There should
be a difference between the system view and the users hardware
view.

            josephus
-- 
Joe Widows  --   972 783 8944
I go sailing in the summer and look at stars in the winter.
Everybody's ignorant-- just on different subjects. 
---- Will Rogers jr.----