On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:49:17 -0800 Jason Dictos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> probably wrote:
> > > > To Jason: take care not to *write* anything to the disk via int 13h. > > I still don't think I understand why you are using FreeBSD for this > > specific purpose. Why if you just spend time escaping from the OS? > > We actually _like_ protected mode, it allows us to be more flexible > and our code doesn't have to be bastardized with 16 dos compilers ;). What are those sixteen compilers that are bastardizing you?:) [Open]Watcom seems to be up for the job (you can create 32-bit DOS programs with it). > However in dos > we have garanteed hard drive support via int13 (Well almost garanteed, > but if an os can boot of the computer, we can access the disk), The hard disk is not the only device you can boot off. Consider floppies, CDROMS, etc. etc. So your access to the disk is only guaranteed when you can read the disk, which seems like a tautology to me:). > and I'm looking for the same sorta garantee in BSD. You are stating that the BIOS has better hardware support that FreeBSD. Can you give any examples? > People will be using this with raid > controllers, scsi hard disks, and ide drives (Server recovery), so > there will be many times when the hardware running the hd requires > specific support, which BSD may or may not have, point is we dont' > want to manage that. May I paraphrase: `If we have a disk which is unsupported by BIOS, we can just wash hands as we can't change the BIOS. If we have a disk which might be supported by FreeBSD but which we don't know the driver name for, we feel guilty, so we don't want that'. Is my understanding correct? There are not so many HDD drivers for FreeBSD out there. -- DoubleF Critic, n.: A person who boasts himself hard to please because nobody tries to please him. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Description: PGP signature