From: liljeber@kruuna.Helsinki.FI (Mika Pekka Liljeberg) Subject: Re: generic mtools, prev. post Date: 15 Mar 1992 08:54:10 GMT
In article <1992Mar14.202200.18617@muddcs.claremont.edu> jwinstea@jarthur.claremont.edu (Jim Winstead Jr.) wrote:
> I don't see mtools as being necessary, at all. If you want to
> transfer files from DOS to Linux, get rawrite.exe and rawrite tar
> files to diskettes, and then read those with tar under Linux. The
> only possible advantage of mtools is that it can access DOS hard drive
> partitions, but I personally wouldn't trust it to do so.
Well, I use Mtools all the time. I have excellent communication programs
for DOS, which I can't say about Linux. As a result, I do most of my
downloading under DOS. I also keep most of the packed Linux stuff in
a DOS partition, because it's such a pain to fool around with rawrite,
tar and a bunch of floppies. It is MUCH easier to type
'mtype foo_tar.z | tar xz', which unpacks a .tar.Z file straight from
the DOS partition and in no time at all.
> As a result, you won't see mtools on the 0.95a root floppy. It would,
> however, be great if someone took the time to make a mtools.tar.Z that
> came with a good README.linux and a sample devices.c, so those that
> felt a need for mtools could compile it easily. The currently
> available ones are a bit tricky to set up, and require a bit of
> guesswork in devices.c.
I don't see why you have to try and pack everything on the root floppy
in the first place. It is my impression that the root floppy is mostly
useful only for getting a root file system onto the hard disk. Period.
Why not make a third distribution image, which has all the best tools
on it: tar, un/compress, mtools, bash, the works? After you've got
your hd root file system up and running, it's a piece of cake to mount
the tool image and copy the rest of the stuff.
>>Am I completely off-base with this? Am I forgetting/overlooking
>>something?
>
> I wouldn't say you're off base, but I think you're tackling the issue
> from the wrong side. I don't think Linux should be forced to read DOS
> devices - I think DOS should write things that Linux can read.
This is silly. I'm willing to bet that most Linux users are running
a hybrid system, with both DOS and Linux on it. In such a system there
will always be a lot of data shuttling back and forth between the two.
In my opinion, we should go for the most convenient way to do things,
which at the moment is Mtools, without doubt. I don't expect anyone will
write anything compareable for DOS anytime soon...
> Tar is already on the root floppy because it is a 'standard' Unix
> tool. We should make use of that rather than try and jam more onto
> the already-crowded root floppy.
I for one don't want to put up with unnecessary contortions just because
it's 'standard' Unix. I agree that the root floppy shouldn't contain
any unnecessary stuff, though.
> Then again, if someone writes a DOS file system for Linux, this
> discussion would be pointless. I'd rather see a faster file system
> for Linux, first, though, to replace the brain-dead Minix one. I need
> room for more descriptive filenames like bc-1.02.bin.tar.Z and
> bc-1.02.src.tar.Z.
I agree. If someone wants to write DOS file system for Linux, I won't
kick up a fuss, but it really isn't important, not urgent.
Mika