Re: Disassembling an FST.

[brian.hammack@rook.wa.com (Brian Hammack)]

 Bill raised the cup and toasted:

     | longer filenames.  It's a tradeoff I guess.  I still believe
     | HFS+ is overkill for the GS...  Too bad we just couldn't get the
     | MS-DOS.FST finished (with write) and maybe find a way to speed
     | up the HFS one a little bit.  I'd be content with that.

Well, the writeable MSDOS one may happen yet.  As for HFS+, I look at
it like this:  hard drives are getting bigger so we should be able to
enjoy them as-is instead of partitioned to bits.  Not so much of a
problem in HFS as it is in (32MB per partition) ProDOS but...  :)

 SME(|  Yeah, it'd be nice if we could get some people to organize and
     | actually do it.  It'd be nice to get Apple's blessings as well.
     | Perhaps the programmers could be reimbursed ($$$) for their

Now don't quote me on this because I'm just a cheerleader, but some
folks are actually discussing organizing, and it's really too early for
me to say anything at all since there is yet to be an agreement.
BUT...  Yes, there are interested parties who may mobilize.

Apple's blessings?  Yeah, right.  Sure, it could happen.  Way I see it,
the less discussion with the company, the less meddling the project
gets from a party who purports it couldn't care but legally may.

Reimbursement?  Okay, stop.  It's a great idea.  But for legal reasons,
if the new code is based on the old code and Apple had nothing to do
with the creation of the new code, it'd be best if the programmers did
not accept money.  Keeps the number of lawsuits by Apple down.  :)

 * 2qwk! 2.04 * I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it.