"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote:
> >>> > If NT really does what you describe... Well, small wonder that it's so
> >>> > bloated.
> >>> As far as I know, Chkdsk, the FS-specific checking DLLs, etc... are all
> >>> user mode code. I don't know what mechanism Jeff is referring to re: auto
> >>> invoking chkdsk on volume mounts, so I can't say how that's accomplished
> >>> (probably makes a callback to user mode to invoke the utilities).
> >>> -mike
> >> Windows, here, both 95 and NT just do a chkdsk upon startup. Windows
> >> doesn't have the notion of "mount". Maybe Win-2000 will have, but
> >> nothing I've seen yet does.
> >What you are saying ? OF COURSE 9X & NT HAS mount syscall. There are no
> >mount utility, it's right, but mount syscall is there. And it will return
> >to you is chkdsk/scandisk is needed (that is driver was not unmounted cleanly).
> >Just like in Linux. The only difference is that you can mount something only
> >on drive letter and not in directory...
> Actually, from what I was just reading about Windows 2000,
> Microsoft is adding a new innovative feature that they single
> handedly came up with that allows you to "splice" a filesystem
> onto a directory point.
> I read that the reason was to do away with drive letters. So,
> hats off to Microsoft for inventing this new concept of
> "splicing" filesystems onto directories.
> Mike A. Harris Linux advocate
> Computer Consultant GNU advocate
> Capslock Consulting Open Source advocate
> Join the FreeMWare project - the goal to produce a FREE program in
> which you can run Windows 95/98/NT, and other operating systems.
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to email@example.com
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/