MB> themselves, especially since HPFS is owned by Microsoft, not
 MB> IBM.  HPFS would have to go, but it really should have been

 JM> If Microsoft owns HPFS, why did they make a new NTFS?  
 JM> Or is this a better version of HPFS?

NTFS has a number of enhancements to and is a natural evolution of HPFS. 
While HPFS was designed to be quickly handled on a 16-bit processor, NTFS
is designed for a 32-bit processor.  Several important features have also
been added to NTFS, especially support for dynamic rather than static
memory cache. The data on disk is very similar between HPFS and NTFS,
although the implementation is quite different.

 MB> comparison even with such modern developments as the Linux
 MB> Second Extended file system, which someone someday will
 MB> probably port to OS/2.

 JM> This is interesting.  How hard would this be to do?  I 
 JM> was toying with the idea of trying to write and IFS for 
 JM> OS/2 to read my Linux partition.  That sounds rather 
 JM> tough, though.

I don't think it would be very hard.  OS2DASD.DMD provides logical sector
I/O which is analogous to Linux services already, and most of the work
would be in providing a necessary encapsulation of the Linux driver
functions into the OS/2 IFS format.  An OS/2 IFS is actually just a DLL
that exports certain reserved symbols and runs at Ring 0.

-- Mike


--- Maximus/2 2.02