> the goal followed by the kernel programmers was
> both
>  ' make as many programs happy as possible. if we have to decide which
>    DOS version to follow, take the younger one. '
>   some (very few) internal ('undocumented') data structures changed
>   between 3.x and 5.x; we took 5.x format

Yes. I noted that in my first reply of this thread.

> if YOU think LFN support in the kernel would be interesting, sit down
> and make it. everybody else will have to use DOSLFN...

To whom in particular did you write this? I'm of your opinion, too.

> I would call that 'hard work', noy just 'coincidence' ;)

Yes. Yes, it was work. Work to make FreeDOS compatible with MS-DOS 7  
(Eric's so-called "Win DOS"). Contrary to Eric's statement it seems that  
it needed to be compatible; or why else would you work for it?

> Plus support for new hardware in ways which may (FAT32,
> LBA) but do not need to be compatible to Win DOS 7.


Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to