Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well that's not really a "file". That's a magic filename.

Wellll... You can argue about it. I assume you know how it worked 
inside. But yeah, I get what you're saying. There wasn't a directory 
entry for the device drivers as such. Which, when you think about it, 
makes sense.

You could iterate over device drivers. They just weren't on the disk, so 
it used different APIs.

> Instead, there are lots of roots like "FOO:", "BAR:", etc. This is more 
> like MS-DOS pathname syntax.

I'll grant you that one.

> Now, the way it *works* is of course more like Unix...

No, the way it works isn't like either. :-) It's closer to a microkernel 
than anything.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message