[Coco] Re: Why DECB is important to OS-9 folk.

[farna at att.net]

I just sent someone on the list here a copy of "CoCoTop", which I sold for a couple years wat back when. It's an OS-9 file/utility shell very much as you guys are describing. It was intended for those unfamiliar with OS-9, and would do all normal file manipulations and one could launch a program, which would auto start in another window. I can't remember the author's name right off... but I had rights to it. If someone gets a copy and diassembles, then uses that as the basis for something new I don't mind -- as long as it's made PD and/or distributed at a reasonable copy/shipping/handling fee. 

--
Frank Swygert
Publisher, "American Independent 
Magazine" (AIM)
For all AMC enthusiasts
http://farna.home.att.net/AIM.html
(free download available!)

 -------------- Original message ----------------------

> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:38:56 -0700
> From: "Stephen H. Fischer" <SFischer1 at MindSpring.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coco] Why DECB is important to OS-9 folk.
> To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> Message-ID: <000201c5bb4e$b6467080$0100a8c0 at hyder>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> 	reply-type=original
> 
> 
> 
> John R. Hogerhuis wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 14:28 -1000, Alex Evans wrote:
> >
> >> We need to figure out how and why before we start to try to
> >> simplify it.  As for translating error codes, there is a poor
> >> correspondence between the two sets because OS-9 is an operating
> >> system, and DECB is primarily a programming language.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > I think the most straightforward thing would be to have the system boot
> > up to a file-oriented shell. MV is okay, but I think it's kind of a dog.
> > Something more like the screen on a Model 100 when it comes on. Easy
> > access to your files, BASIC-09, a text editor and whatever programs
> > you've installed.
> >
> > For a mixed shell as has been described, I'd say start it up in BASIC.
> > But if you type DOS it switches to a shell, and if you exit, you end up
> > back in BASIC. The main difference being, that you boot to OS-9, and the
> > context switch happens instantly. Ideally all file access would actually
> > thunk to OS-9 file system. Raw sector DSKI$, DSKO$ would either be
> > unsupported or a compatibility mode would have to be requested
> >
> > I think it would just be too confusing to try to meld the two together.
> > But it would be darned convenient to be able to switch between them and
> > have RS-DOS read/write directly to OS-9 filesystem.
> >
> > -- John.
> 
> One reason that I do not just start coding is to understand how the entire
> system might work and allows simple changes to produce great benefits.
> 
> The dual access to a file system is manageable but difficult. At this point
> that is something that I am thinking about. It is part of a much larger
> problem that one  solution may make many things possible with less
> work. A fall back position would be a method to appear to be doing this but
> actually not. But the user thinks it is being done.
> 
> I do not wish to start defining features until more is known even though I
> may talk about specific implementations. That is a useful method for getting
> information on what must be addressed. So far the comments on "You can't do
> that or it won't work" are generating more useful information than the
> comments "You should do it this way".
> 
> The comments above are pretty much like I am thinking, but no commitment
> until the main problem is solved. More to come. No details here. Sorry.
> 
> 
> Stephen H. Fischer 
>