Norton Utilities vs. "the way things are"

[uunet!bria!mike]

In an article, alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca!mroussel (Marc Roussel) writes:
>In article <453 at bria> uunet!bria!mike writes:
>>Should I compare methodology, I would much prefer a tool that goes hunting
>>through the freelist and recovering only part of my file, rather than
>>Pete Norton sticking his fingers in my kernel.
>
>Now you're not even making sense.  Norton quite reasonably implements
>undeletion in the kernel (through a kernel patch), the approach which
>you favour, and yet you object to "Norton sticking his fingers in my kernel".
>Sheesh!

I thought I made myself rather clear on this point.  My objection is
the fact that NU implements undeletion in the kernel by "patching" 
(read: molesting) it. 

I stated that I would like to see kernel support for file undeletion.
When I say kernel support, I mean as being a fundamental part of the 
filesystem code, not a hack applied from the outside.  I certainly did
_NOT_ state that I would like to see a bunch of migrant workers from 
the DOS world fingering my operating system.

To make it even more clear:

	If you are a company that ports versions of UNIX to various
	platforms, it would be nice to see support for file recovery
	at the kernel level.

	If you are a company that writes tools (er, toys) for MS-DOS 
	systems, and you have an urge to mung with the OS, do us
	all a favor and kindly stay the hell of of the UNIX marketplace.

Not that I have a prejudice against DOS, or anything like that. :-)

Cheers,
-- 
Michael Stefanik, MGI Inc., Los Angeles| Opinions stated are not even my own.
Title of the week: Systems Engineer    | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember folks: If you can't flame MS-DOS, then what _can_ you flame?