🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1129@metaphor.Metaphor.COM> (Dallas J. Hodgson) writes:
>I can see no conflict between making bootable 2.0 partitions readable
>from bootable 1.3 paritions, or vice-versa. Just treat them as separate
>devices, much like DF0: and DF1:. Surely you're not going to say that DIR
>and LIST has problems with this concept? If each partition has a unique
>name, you could use them instead when you're CD'ing or DIR'ing around.

The only problem is with executables. 2.0 executables are _not_ compatible
with 1.3 much at all if any. I run with my 2.0 partition "visible" but I
am very careful to isolate executables from one version OS to the other. 
A couple of "bugs" I thought I had discovered turned out to be bad
executables. 

For Andy : A "version" hunk type would be nice in an executable so that
one could use the version command on them. 

Anyway, there isn't any physical reason not to have the partitions visible
but if you can put all of your 1.3 only and 2.0 only binaries into two
partitions and then only make the one visible that is needed, it is a 
whole lot nicer and you avoid otherwise needless problems.


--
--Chuck McManis						    Sun Microsystems
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: <none>   Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
"I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"