Just because system makers wanted to reduce the number of disks the sent out
with their systems doesn't mean that their mistake has to be repeated. Just
because they used to do it wrong, perhaps for a good reason (I'm sure they
thought economics made their reason good). If you're trying to send a bit
of information, and this is information, isn't it, you need merely find a
way to distribute the information. You don't need to include unnecessary
pieces of stuff that, in many cases, doesn't even belong to you.
Are you saying that you don't know how to write a diskette without including
the OS on it?
see other comments below, plz.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sellam Ismail <foo(a)siconic.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Defining Disk Image Dump Standard
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> The way you separate the operating system from the executables is by
> Never, NEVER, mixing them on the same medium,
particularly if it's
> for dissemination. If the platforms are
disparate, you certainly don't
Ok, Mr. Wizard. Build a time machine, travel back in time, and urge all
the various computer manufacturers to never, NEVER mix their OS with the
rest of the program space on the disk. Fortunately, we are not trying to
revise the reality of our world, but are merely trying to deal with what
it has become, which is a much simpler procedure.
At this point I would say it's time for Dick's nap and be done with him
Too late! I already had my nap.
but it seems he has a few more hundred lines of useless spewage as usual.
> when these old machines were relevant doesn't matter. What you need is
> way to put the material you wish to convey to
some other party on a
likely to be readable today and in the future by the intended
Really? I thought we were trying to build a perpetual motion machine
here. Thanks for getting me back on track, Dick!
Well, what it looked like was exactly that, a perpetual motion machine.
You'd perpetually be trying to deal with all the superflous information
included due to your inability NOT to include the OS on a diskette.
<senseless babbling expunged>
<more enigmatic blather deleted>
> I'm just raising the issue that not every system has floppy disks or mag
> tape, and, certainly fewer have both. Then there's the issue of how to
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I *THINK*, not sure, but I THINK, we
were, in fact, talking about creating floppy disk archives. Correct me if
I'm wrong, Dick.
> them on system A when written on system B. The latter's inherently
> solvable, but if you want to archive data about or useful with a given
> you don't have to write the data to a medium
capable of reading or
> interpreting the OS image. The primary concern is finding a medium
Dick, why do you propose problems that you just end up arguing against?
Are you even aware that there are other people on this mailing list that
you are communicating with, or do you think this entire conversation is
going on in your head? No one ever proposed what you are railing against
right now. Are you insane? No, really. I'm being serious. Do you
suffer from a mental condition?
<more worthless drivel ignored>
> It's just as I said before: You simply want to transmit, but you don't
No, Dick. The problem here is you are transmitting, then receiving it
yourself, getting angry at what you read, and then associating it with
whatever hapless fool happens to be in the vicinity at the moment, and
then blaming them for it.
Well, I believe you're probably more worked up than I. I doubt floppies
will be around in 10-15 years, though they may be. However, if you don't
find a way to avoid this built-in obsolescence, you'll be solving this
problem again and again. I don't know what you're thinking about, but, the
use of mechanical media of a type that's already been around as long as
floppies, and, for that matter, other rotating media. Why not examine some
What interested me about this thread was that a decision leading to as many
problems as it solved was beginning to emerge. What puzzles me is why it's
important that the originating system's identification data has to be
included in a file of information, probably otherwise unrelated to the
process of recording it. Once you have the means to read that data, it
becomes suprefluous, since all that's needed once you're able to read that
info is to figure out where the data block you're wanting to transmit begins
If you want to be simple, you write absolutely nothing on the medium other
than what you want to pass along. So long as you choose a medium that will
be available later on when you want to use it, nothing could be simpler.
The key is to use a data format that is easily understood, either because
it's already a standard, or because you do things very simply by using one
file per diskette, in a compressed format that is easily specified or
standardized. With floppies, I don't know how you're going to use your
Apple][ to read a diskette from a Kaypro.
What's more, I don't know how you'll write a file with your PDP-5 such that
a MacIntosh can read it.
EARTH TO DICK: GET A CLUE.
Sellam International Man of Intrigue and
Looking for a six in a pile of nines...
Coming soon: VCF 4.0!
VCF East: Planning in Progress