From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Jun 7 13:27:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA04157 for questions-outgoing; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 13:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from castor2.freiepresse.de (castor2.freiepresse.de [194.25.232.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA04147 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 13:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from speedy.gerhardnet (ppp-pln184.freiepresse.de [194.25.234.184]) by castor2.freiepresse.de (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id VAA05515 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 21:27:13 -0100 (Etc/GMT) Message-ID: <3399C2E0.60B@abo.freiepresse.de> Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 22:21:52 +0200 From: Gerhard Sittig Reply-To: G.Sittig@abo.freiepresse.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD-questions Subject: Re: XFree86 and Partintioning questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Steve Howe wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Alan Gaddis wrote: > > > Also, I was wondering if there is any way to install FreeBSD into a DOS > > directory? I know you can with Linux, and I would rather not have to > > repartition my hard drive. > > can't help with that one, although i think some people have used > that Linux utility with FreeBSD. you really should re-partition, > for several reasons - speed, security (data and otherwise), etc. > Reading the Linux doc for that kind of feature you'll notice the primary reason: it's meant for DEMO mode and not for real systems working with (whatever flavour of) UNIX regularly. A prerequisit for "real" data in a DOS fs is the removal of it's stupid limits (8.3 names, no ownership, almost no access control, regular files and dirs only, HUGE clusters, and the like). The way Linux handles this is using the umsdos fs -- "one way to make a boring fs become a useful one". The additional layer above msdos (by means of a config file in every directory called --linux.--- or so) means some overhead and source of failures. And you always have to "sync" the info (i.e. rebuild the non-DOS info) once you touched the disk with DOS. And there are some DOS limitations you even cannot get rid of by this method. If you read that message this far, you might be sure that a DOS filesystem is the wrong place for an operating system or it's essential data (system's binaries and configuration). But for exchanging data you can mount a DOS volume -- FAT ist the language EVERY OS knows about. BTW: Sometimes I'm missing vfat support (long filenames for downloaded "package-version.tar.gz" and accompanying html docs. The only reason for not wanting to partition a disk is setting some fix borders for yourself. Having two systems in one volume gives a chance for "shutteling" data in the free space as it will grow and shrink (might be seen like the way data and stack are growing towards from opposit ends of memory). partitions: | DATA FROM SYSTEM ONE | DATA FROM SYSTEM TWO | fix^ shared volume: | DATA AT TIME 1 | DATA AT TIME 1 | | DATA AT TIME 2 | DATA AT TIME 2 | ^ movable ^ -- virtually yours -- G.Sittig@abo.FreiePresse.DE If you don't understand or are scared by any of the above ask your parents or an adult to help you.