home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
Wrap
Received: from arthur.cs.purdue.edu (arthur.cs.purdue.edu [128.10.2.1]) by nacm.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA13767 for <executor@nacm.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 20:20:33 -0700 Received: from lab33.cs.purdue.edu (huntercr@lab33.cs.purdue.edu [128.10.12.111]) by arthur.cs.purdue.edu (8.6.10/PURDUE_CS-1.3) with ESMTP id <WAA01085> for <executor@nacm.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 22:20:31 -0500 Received: (huntercr@localhost) by lab33.cs.purdue.edu (8.6.10/PURDUE_CS-1.3) id <WAA17968> for executor@nacm.com; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 22:20:28 -0500 From: huntercr@cs.purdue.edu (Charles Hunter) Message-Id: <199510180320.WAA17968@lab33.cs.purdue.edu> Subject: Port to what? was: Re: executor-digest V1 #301 To: executor@nacm.com (Executor mailing list) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 22:20:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199510172257.WAA91862@smtp-gw01.ny.us.ibm.net> from "Pat Gunn" at Oct 17, 95 06:56:58 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1298 Sender: owner-paper@nacm.com Precedence: bulk > > >From: Brian Hawley <bhawley@luc.edu> > >Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:45:20 -0500 > >Subject: Long filenames > > > >Hi there. > > > >Does Executor support long filenames on VFAT drives under Win95? I would > >think that the filenames used by Mac files would map well to the Win95 ones, > >and this would simplify things quite a bit for me. > > > >Executor seems to work well for me so far. If I have any major problems I'll > >be sure to mention them. > > Oh, BTW- I think IBM made some way to let DOS apps under OS/2 access long > filenames, I'd love to see this under Executor, or perhaps (even better) let Executor sit > rawly in the HPFS file system, and merge the data and resurce forks into one file, letting > Executor seperate them for the Mac programs...? > Personally, I can't believe that Windows95 support [is going to come /would be] before OS/2, afterall there is no native gcc for 95, but we've got two complete followings of gcc for OS/2 ( EMX and gcc/2 ) I think porting Executor to a native OS/2 VIO app would take less than a week with EMX. And a really *flashy* ( threaded, DIVE, etc ) executable could be had within a month. Something to think about... Sheesh.. I'd even do the port if you all ( ARDI ) would like 8-) Just some thoughts. -- Charles Hunter