Hi Imre, > Does the fact that all this runs on linux slip your mind > (like in no way interesting for the stated purpose).
Some of the filesystems claim to be implemented in only 4 kilobytes of code. Which is a lot smaller than the FAT engine in the FreeDOS kernel, for example. If you made a variant of our kernel with FAT removed and one of the small readonly FS implemented, you could get more of DOS into for example a flash BIOS. Of course removing FAT would introduce all sorts of limitations so it is only useful if not even a FAT ramdisk is expected to be used in this "boots DOS in BIOS" example... In any case, the suggested filesystems are all potentially USEFUL for DOS even though their "reference implementation" is Linux. > Seriously, how is any of that supposed to be running in DOS? > It's mainly not even embedded (like a set of operating system > services you can embed in a microcontroller application). Neither LEAN nor any of the proposed compressed file systems are implemented in any default DOS kernel. So it does not make a difference whether you compile a FreeDOS driver or modified FreeDOS kernel for LEAN or rather for some of the compressed filesystems as long as the specs or the source code for the filesystem handling are freely available. I agree that there is no free open source compressed file system which you can just "drop in and run" to install. But you can port or implement a system of your choice... This is still much better compared to the situation when only proprietary / patented / closed source systems are available, for example WinCE/Vista's exFAT. Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
