From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Apr 12 10:36:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from alicia.nttmcl.com (alicia.nttmcl.com [216.69.69.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8E337B405 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jj@localhost) by alicia.nttmcl.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g3CHaTa12817; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:36:29 -0700 From: JJ Behrens To: "Sameer R. Manek" , stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: very old bug Message-ID: <20020412103629.C11707@alicia.nttmcl.com> References: <87sn612vsh.fsf@basilikum.skogtun.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from manek@ecst.csuchico.edu on Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 03:33:54AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > In fact, MS-DOS provide far superior support for floppies than Linux or > > > FreeBSD or any other Unix I've used. > > > > In what way? > > Perhaps in the way this thread has been discussing for the past 10 or so > posts? Namely the handling of error conditions, when dealing with a floppy > that has been write protected. > > In MS-DOS you weren't stuck in an endless loop of attempting to write to the > floppy. I fear that this is getting *way OT*, but: MS-DOS didn't mount the floppies. This problem is difficult because we *do* mount the floppies. However, mounting has a lot of benefits that MS-DOS doesn't provide. -jj -- Users of C++ should consider hanging themselves rather than shooting their legs off--it's best not to use C++ simply as a better C. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message