c60a-3dt@tart15.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Robert Bowdidge) (05/19/87)
So what's the rudest thing you ever did to a TRSDOS 1.3 diskette?
After getting the source a long time ago, various twisted ideas
have gone through my head, but this one takes the cake:
Give TRSDOS 1.3 a tree-structured directory just like UNIX.
After all, the directory entries look a lot like inodes from Unix,
and then all you'd need to do is have files called "directories"
where you have name and inode number, and then add utilities like
ls, cd (which could be added by removing useless system commands like...
well, I don't know, but passwords are going to go for sure...)
Any discussion? Someone's GOT to have tried this before! How many have
taken a good Operating Systems class?
-- Robert
Robert Bowdidge
==========================================================================
.ucbvax!cory!bowdidge | bowdidge%cory@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
| or bowdidge@cory.BERKELEY.EDU
E2A Cloyne Court 2600 Ridge Road Berkeley CA 94709-1099 (415) 549-6367
--- In a rock concert, no one can hear you scream...rhealey@ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey) (05/26/87)
In article <3625@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> bowdidge@cory.BERKELEY.EDU writes: >So what's the rudest thing you ever did to a TRSDOS 1.3 diskette? > >Give TRSDOS 1.3 a tree-structured directory just like UNIX. > >Any discussion? Someone's GOT to have tried this before! How many have >taken a good Operating Systems class? If your going to hack up directorys at least do it on a DECENT OS: One of the LDOS's would prove nice. By the way, it's not as outrageous as you might think. I have an idea of how to add directorys by adding a high memory driver but Roy Soltoff never responded to my inquiry about how much kernal munging would need to be done. Oh well.... -Rob Healey rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu
authorplaceholder@trsvax.UUCP (05/26/87)
<How many 386 processors does it take to do a 32 bit multiply correctly?> >Any discussion? Someone's GOT to have tried this before! How many have >taken a good Operating Systems class? Yeah, and it WAS a good enough course to prevent me from even bothering, and I have complete, original source and put-it-together tools, not a disassembly. Why don't you go out, buy a copy of LS-DOS or LDOS, buy DiskDisk, and write a ECI that emulates csh and uses DiskDisk to emulate a multi-level directory? Or re-write one of those operating systems? Why on earth would anyone want to start with 1.3, the operating system that doesn't (and can't) know about double-sided floppies, or hard disks, and writes on track 0 when it doesn't know what to do next? Perhaps this is the origin of the message: Abort, Retry, or Destroy? (Yes, it isn't that bad.... but it's close.) I didn't write TRSDOS 1.x, but I used to write patches for it. LS-DOS is a trademark of Logical Systems Inc. LDOS was a trademark of Logical Systems, but is now owned by Misosys. DiskDisk is sold by Misosys but its trademark is owned by Logical Systems Inc. Am I going too slow for you? <This information is provided by an individual and is not nor should be construed as being provided by Radio Shack or Tandy Corp. Radio Shack/Tandy Corp has no obligation to support the information provided in any way. It's too early in the morning and I can't think of any- thing good to say for this disclaimer, so I will use CASE default: printf("letnI sucks silicon\n"); break; /*but then it usually does*/.> "Thank you, Uh Clem." Frank Durda IV @ <trsvax!uhclem> ...decvax!microsoft!trsvax!uhclem ...convex!infoswx!trsvax!uhclem "I was here first, you imposter!"
aeusemrs@csun.UUCP (06/09/87)
In article <193300015@trsvax> uhclem@trsvax.UUCP writes: >Why on earth would anyone want to start with 1.3, the operating system >that doesn't (and can't) know about double-sided floppies, or hard disks, >and writes on track 0 when it doesn't know what to do next? Well, I just had to responde to this... Can't is a very strong word, and should be used with caution. I must have you over to my house, so that you CAN see, with your very own eyes, that TRSDOS 1.3, can (when properly asked), and does currently use every bit of a 80 track double sided drive. Or if you prefer, I can post the necessary steps to take to ask your TRSDOS 1.3 to use all of your disk. I admit, TRSDOS 1.3 is very primitive, and hard to work with, but none the less, not impossible. (I use Unix most of the time, and TRSDOS 1.3 at home, usually to call a Unix machine. :-)) Mike Stump -- Mike Stump, Cal State Univ, Northridge Comp Sci Department uucp: {sdcrdcf, ihnp4, hplabs, ttidca, psivax, csustan}!csun!aeusemrs
gene@cooper.UUCP (Gene from EK Enterprises) (06/13/87)
> ... that TRSDOS 1.3, can (when properly asked), > and does currently use every bit of a 80 track double sided drive. Or if you > prefer, I can post the necessary steps to take to ask your TRSDOS 1.3 to > use all of your disk. > Mike Stump, Cal State Univ, Northridge Comp Sci Department > uucp: {sdcrdcf, ihnp4, hplabs, ttidca, psivax, csustan}!csun!aeusemrs YES! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! I never got around to dissecting TRSDOS code, other than what was sort of described in books on the subject. (Reason: just *try* to trace some of the ROM calls, like $ROUTE. Sloppy, sloppy.) Anyway, if you can {mail|post} the appropriate patches, I would be eternally grateful. (If you need any utilities, just ask me. If I have something similar to what you might ask for, I'll respond.) (That offer also applies to anyone else, just for the asking.) Thanx. Gene
zog@laidbak.UUCP (06/14/87)
In article <952@cooper.UUCP> gene@cooper.UUCP (Gene from EK Enterprises) writes: >> ... that TRSDOS 1.3, can (when properly asked), >> and does currently use every bit of a 80 track double sided drive. Or if you >> prefer, I can post the necessary steps to take to ask your TRSDOS 1.3 to >> use all of your disk. ^^^^^^ Please do !! Christian G. Herzog Lachman Assoc. ihnp4!laidbak!zog