Hello!
Would anyone who keeps track of the traffic on the LKML list know if
the UMSDOS support has been taken out of the 2.6 kernels? Or has
support for it been updated?

Several years ago, and about the time the 2.6 kernels started coming
out, there was talk of it being discontinued by the time the 2.6
kernel went completely active as opposed to the collection of RCx
series of kernels.

I ask because there's always that rumor that our friends at Slackware
will be switching just to the 2.6 ones, and of course Zipslack has the
2.4.33.3 one in its installed kit. (That's what I am currently running
on another machine for reasons that I can not go into now.)
--
Gregg gregg drwho8 atsign gmail dot com
"This signature can deliver invitations to Google's Mail service."

gregg dot drwho8 atsign gmail dot com wrote:
> Hello!
> Would anyone who keeps track of the traffic on the LKML list know if
> the UMSDOS support has been taken out of the 2.6 kernels? Or has
> support for it been updated?

boy, one quick google search for 'umsdos' leads me to (among others):

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMSDOS>

<http://linux.voyager.hr/umsdos/>

which both tell the story: umsdos support is taken out of the 2.6 kernel,
and is unlikely to be reintroduced.

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)

gregg dot drwho8 atsign gmail dot com wrote:

> Hello!
> Would anyone who keeps track of the traffic on the LKML list know if
> the UMSDOS support has been taken out of the 2.6 kernels? Or has
> support for it been updated?

I know nothing about the LKML but it might be worth looking at the union fs
used in Slax. It's not quite the same thing but I suspect it does the same
job and more as a quick guess.

Pete
--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 00:29:47 +0000, Peter Chant wrote:

> gregg dot drwho8 atsign gmail dot com wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>> Would anyone who keeps track of the traffic on the LKML list know if
>> the UMSDOS support has been taken out of the 2.6 kernels? Or has
>> support for it been updated?
>
> I know nothing about the LKML but it might be worth looking at the union fs
> used in Slax. It's not quite the same thing but I suspect it does the same
> job and more as a quick guess.
>
> Pete
>
IMO, unionfs and umsdos are not very similar. They are used as ways
around the problem of quickly establishing a working environment on a PC
without repartitioning.

To the OP: I am not sure what application for umsdos filesystem you had in
mind (perhaps, zipslack?). In any case, here are some other options to
run slackware more-or-less natively.

Options:
1. Install slackware natively in its own partition(s).
2. Use a "live" CD environment.
3. Use a "loopback" based install.

The drawback to using optical disc is that there can be variable speed
penalties when reading/looking for files. Also, live CDs which use
unionfs will lack support for SMP. Option 3 may be a good compromise. The
only trick is booting. An initrd and linuxrc with hardwired parameters
can help overcome that problem, too.

I'll stop here in case I am too far off topic from your question.

--
Douglas Mayne

Douglas Mayne wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 00:29:47 +0000, Peter Chant wrote:
>
> > gregg dot drwho8 atsign gmail dot com wrote:
> >
> >> Hello!
> >> Would anyone who keeps track of the traffic on the LKML list know if
> >> the UMSDOS support has been taken out of the 2.6 kernels? Or has
> >> support for it been updated?
> >
> > I know nothing about the LKML but it might be worth looking at the union fs
> > used in Slax. It's not quite the same thing but I suspect it does the same
> > job and more as a quick guess.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> IMO, unionfs and umsdos are not very similar. They are used as ways
> around the problem of quickly establishing a working environment on a PC
> without repartitioning.
>
> To the OP: I am not sure what application for umsdos filesystem you had in
> mind (perhaps, zipslack?). In any case, here are some other options to
> run slackware more-or-less natively.
>
> Options:
> 1. Install slackware natively in its own partition(s).
> 2. Use a "live" CD environment.
> 3. Use a "loopback" based install.
>
> The drawback to using optical disc is that there can be variable speed
> penalties when reading/looking for files. Also, live CDs which use
> unionfs will lack support for SMP. Option 3 may be a good compromise. The
> only trick is booting. An initrd and linuxrc with hardwired parameters
> can help overcome that problem, too.
>
> I'll stop here in case I am too far off topic from your question.
>
> --
> Douglas Mayne

Hello!
Actually your not. I have run Slackware on that family of machines as a
native. In fact I installed the current release for what is now -11.0
on a Dell system from the same period.

However currently the one in question is the only machine here who can
properly make use of the software for my digital camera. I suspect at
some point in time I'll switch the features and such to a different
machine.

There are other issues. If you want to, feel free to contact me via
e-mail directly to go over these issues.

You are also correct concerning UnionFS and its features, from what
I've read its, ah, not quite what I need. As for the reasons why I've
got ZipSlack installed, see above. I do understand that some of the
special features that the USB protocol stack has for 2.6 are not
available for 2.4, but currently I'm not developing anything that will
need that. That will change very soon.

Pat gives a sterling explanation as to why the UMSDOS filesystem was
created in the text files stored on the CDs and of course on the
servers. They deserve reading.
--
Gregg gregg.drwho8 atsign gmail dot com
"This signature would really like to be on DS9."