RE: [MiNT] MiNTLib 0.52.3b

["Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>]

> From: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]On Behalf
> Of Jo-Even.Skarstein@gjensidige.no
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 12:51 PM
> To: mint@fishpool.com
> Subject: RE: [MiNT] MiNTLib 0.52.3b
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Martin-Eric Racine [SMTP:q-funk@pp.fishpool.com]
> > Sent:	Thursday, August 05, 1999 10:43 AM
> > To:	unlisted-recipients
> > Cc:	MiNT List
> > Subject:	RE: [MiNT] MiNTLib 0.52.3b
> >
> > > b) Even in that case, you can do the same thing in Bash (with
> the right
> > > tool), and then it's still not worse than under Unix.
> >
> > But why should we have to force media-change detection, while
> > other OS apparently handle it smoothly and transparently?
> >
> umount+mount == "smoothly and transparently"? Perhaps you're thinking of
> Windows? I can assure that Windows has *plenty* of problems with
> mediachanges.
>
> Non-detected mediachanges is a bug, either in MiNT or the BIOS. I
> would say
> that fixing it would be a lot better idea than reverting to a
> scheme that is
> more complex, less flexible and probably still would suffer from the same
> bugs...
>
> I have never had any problems with non-detected mediachanges with
> any other
> device than the floppy, and as you all know this has been a
> problem-area in
> TOS since time began.

I don't agree. It has been rock-solid since TOS 2.06 and 3.06 where a
checksum of the FAT is taking in case of doubt.