andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (05/02/90)
In article <1122@metaphor.Metaphor.COM> djh@dragon.metaphor.com (Dallas J. Hodgson) writes: > >Andy: > > I tried to reply to your previous response, but my letter bounced. So... > > May I humbly suggest that the "Boot Priority" number be used to decide > which bootable partition boots on power-up. I don't see what confusion > would arise allowing 2.0 partitions to access 1.3 partitions. The way it > stands right now, I have to rewrite all my previous hard-drive scripts > simply because "sys:" is no longer where all the files are. If you see two LIST commands, which is 1.3 and which is 2.0 ? If you see two diskcopy commands, which is 1.3 and which is 2.0 ? What if you CD into the wrong partition and type a command ? While the 1.3 commands do work under 2.0, there have been a few bugs fixed, and enhancements added. > The same rep said that the two pairs of sockets will eventually hold > separate copies of 1.3 & 2.0. Any truth to this? Nope, not a word of truth in it. >| Dallas J. Hodgson | "This here's the wattle, | -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "Not everything worth doing is worth doing well." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
djh@dragon.metaphor.com (Dallas J. Hodgson) (05/03/90)
Andy: Sorry, I don't see what the problem is. If a 2.0 partition has a boot priority of 1 and a 1.3 partition has a boot priority of 2 for example, the 2.0 partition should boot - thereby assigning all C:'s, DEVS:, LIBS:, etc. to the correct directories on that partition as according to its startup-sequence. If the priorities were reversed, than the 1.3 partition would boot up accordingly - with 1.3 assignments. I can see no conflict between making bootable 2.0 partitions readable from bootable 1.3 paritions, or vice-versa. Just treat them as separate devices, much like DF0: and DF1:. Surely you're not going to say that DIR and LIST has problems with this concept? If each partition has a unique name, you could use them instead when you're CD'ing or DIR'ing around. +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dallas J. Hodgson | "This here's the wattle, | | Metaphor Computer Systems | It's the emblem of our land. | | Mountain View, Ca. | You can put it in a bottle, | | USENET : djh@metaphor.com | You can hold it in your hand." | +============================================================================+ | "The views I express are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer" | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (05/05/90)
In article <1129@metaphor.Metaphor.COM> (Dallas J. Hodgson) writes: >I can see no conflict between making bootable 2.0 partitions readable >from bootable 1.3 paritions, or vice-versa. Just treat them as separate >devices, much like DF0: and DF1:. Surely you're not going to say that DIR >and LIST has problems with this concept? If each partition has a unique >name, you could use them instead when you're CD'ing or DIR'ing around. The only problem is with executables. 2.0 executables are _not_ compatible with 1.3 much at all if any. I run with my 2.0 partition "visible" but I am very careful to isolate executables from one version OS to the other. A couple of "bugs" I thought I had discovered turned out to be bad executables. For Andy : A "version" hunk type would be nice in an executable so that one could use the version command on them. Anyway, there isn't any physical reason not to have the partitions visible but if you can put all of your 1.3 only and 2.0 only binaries into two partitions and then only make the one visible that is needed, it is a whole lot nicer and you avoid otherwise needless problems. -- --Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (05/08/90)
In article <135241@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: >In article <1129@metaphor.Metaphor.COM> (Dallas J. Hodgson) writes: >For Andy : A "version" hunk type would be nice in an executable so that >one could use the version command on them. "It's in there" :-) Well, sort of. If you use the 2.0 Version command on a 2.0 executable, it will give you the version and revision number, if present. (for 1.3 commands, or the few 2.0 commands that missed it somehow it will give a "no version found" error message. andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "Not everything worth doing is worth doing well." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.