[TUHS] Mach for i386 / Mt Xinu or other
wes.parish at paradise.net.nz
Wed Feb 22 08:58:08 AEST 2017
Now that brings up another reason why I think Linux won. Most of the early Linux developers were
educated partly in the MS/PC/DR DOS world. They wanted a Unix, but they had bought IBM PC clones
with MS DOS and were familiar with the DOS way of doing things.
Linux's disk partitioning is very familiar to anyone who's familiar with the DOS way of disk partitioning.
BSD's disk partitioning is a culture shock. (I know. I'd gotten used to the DOS way of doing things after
learning about disk partitioning with my 486 and IBM OS/2 - the hard way. I tried Linux and the
terminology was the same and due to a neat trick with the DOS filesystem I could experiment with it on
an unchanged DOS system. I then tried FreeBSD and I didn't understand the terminology. So I stuck with
what I'd learnt.)
Quoting Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com>:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 03:28:13PM -0500, Steve Nickolas wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > >In terms of crash worthyness, ext2 was better. I think the ext2
> > >took the approach that they wanted to be as robust as dos but with
> > >performance. And they made it, it's some very nice work.
> > Wouldn't "as robust as DOS" be a *bad* thing?
> The DOS file system, while stupid, was very robust in the face of
> (sort of had to be, he says slyly).
"I have supposed that he who buys a Method means to learn it." - Ferdinand Sor,
Method for Guitar
"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." -- Samuel Goldwyn
More information about the TUHS