CP/M is old school :) like IBM/360 UNIVAC11XX for the little story msdos 1.0 was almost just a clone of cp/m msdos 2.0 has cp/m call and unix like calls msdos 30 has unix like interface to files, and cp/m ones where still there but emulated... I prefer unix system, using a file before was hell you often have miscomputed something and had to rebuild it... Le 28/11/2011 01:08, Ethan Dicks a écrit : > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Marko Mäkelä<msmakela@gmail.com> wrote: >> Sorry, I could not resist the off-topic. >> >> As far as I understand, CP/M copied the file name conventions (except >> subdirectories and file versions) from Digital VAX/VMS, which was supposed >> to replace the archaic *nix systems. > CP/M predates VMS by several years. Whatever it inherited from DEC > operating systems must have come from either RT-11 or TOPS-10 (I've > seen references to both, though what I remember from "back in the day" > it was RT-11). > >> BTW, VMS distinguished binary and ASCII files, too. > Yes, and more. VMS doesn't really have a "stream of bytes" mentality > that's common to UNIX and many personal computer operating systems. > It's record oriented. Even plain text files are made of collections > of records of variable-length (not null-terminated or CRLF terminated > lines of bytes). It was fun moving things to and from VMS as a result > (there were tools for encapsulating the record formats - in the same > tradition as Mac tools that preserved the resource forks). Programs > written in C depend on a lot of invisible glue in the C run-time > libraries to simulate what is "normal" on a UNIX machine in terms of > file I/O. > > -ethan > > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2011-11-28 16:00:09
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.