FINEBERG%WUMS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (10/18/88)
From: net%"peter@sugar.uu.net" 16-OCT-1988 06:58
To: FINEBERG_C
Subj: Re: MSDOS: (Re: Shareware request)
Received: From CUNYVM(MAILER) by WUMS with RSCS id 4768
for FINEBERG_C@WUMS; Sun, 16-OCT-1988 06:58 CST
Received: from CUNYVM by CUNYVM.BITNET (Mailer X2.00) with BSMTP id 7890; Sun,
16 Oct 88 02:12:31 EDT
Received: from UDEL.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.1) with TCP; Sun, 16
Oct 88 02:12:28 EDT
Received: from Louie.UDEL.EDU by Louie.UDEL.EDU id ac21119; 16 Oct 88 0:07 EDT
Received: from USENET by Louie.UDEL.EDU id aa21047; 16 Oct 88 0:02 EDT
From: Peter da Silva <peter@sugar.uu.net>
Subject: Re: MSDOS: (Re: Shareware request)
Message-ID: <2833@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 16 Oct 88 01:37:21 GMT
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
To: amiga-relay@UDEL.EDU
Sender: amiga-relay-request@UDEL.EDU
In article <2833@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <4994@cbmvax.UUCP>, andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes:
>> In article <2816@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> >Right, and another when you want to *stop* using the DOS format and use your
>> >amiga drive again (something to tell doshandler.device to go away). These
>> >are the commands I'm calling 'dosmount' and 'dosunmount'.
>> Why not just inhibit the handler you're not using ?
>Fine. You still need a command you can type at "1>" that'll do the job. If I
>call that command "dosunmount" does it offend your sensibilities? I don't
>recall an "Inhibit" command in 1.2, and didn't see one mentioned in the
>article about 1.3.
You might write a command which would assume that the source drive was
to be looked at as an MSDOS device. You would then inhibit the source
device's Amiga DOS handler and turn on the source devices MSDOS
handler. When the command is done, you would reverse the status. No
DosUnMount needed. Of course I am very new to the Amiga world and
could be sorely mistaken about what can be done. Can you have two
handlers resident for one device at the same time (assuming you always
inhibit one). I thought that is sort of what goes on with ConMan for
instance.
Charlie Fineberg BitNet: FINEBERG_C@WUMS
Washington University School of Medicine
Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology
4566 Scott, Box 8108
St. Louis, MO 63110peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/19/88)
A number of people have sent me messages saying, in effect, "You don't need dosmount and dosunmount! You just need a command to inhibit the AmigaDOS handler and enable the MSDOS handler, and then another one to do the opposite. Yes, I know that. For the sake of argument I was calling the first of these commands "dosmount" and the second "dosunmount". It's just a name, you know. Actually, it might be advisable to have "dosmount" check to make sure that you really have an MSDOS disk in there before enabling the MSDOS handler, to avoid corrupting an AmigaDOS disk. Just an academic excersize, folks. I don't have the driver and I'm not planning on writing one. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?