[Coco] What would a CoCo successor have to have as a minimum?

[Mike Pepe]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com [mailto:coco-
> bounces at maltedmedia.com] On Behalf Of jdaggett at gate.net
> Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 7:21 AM
> To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [Coco] What would a CoCo successor have to have as a
> minimum?
> 
> On 27 Nov 2010 at 7:32, Mike Pepe wrote:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > > FAT16/FAT32 in 8.3 format. Long file names are not supported. M$
> > > proprietary and requires
> > > royalties to M$.
> >
> > Uh, since when? The VFAT read/write code has been freely available in
> Linux for, like, ever. Or maybe Linus already paid the royalty?
> >
> > Nah.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> A better answer is that the 8.3 directory format is a function of the
> VDAP and/or V2DAP
> software within the Vinculum device. The dame restrictions were on the
> the DOS on a CHIP
> IC that has now seem to be discontinued. I do seem to remember the
> datasheets on the
> DOS on a CHIP stating something to the effect that long file names
> where proprietary to M$. I
> will have to reinvestigate that again. Vinculum only supports 512 byte
> sectors and must
> adhere to the AT or  SCSI commands set. The Viculum 2 will support
> smaller sector sizes
> with a read/write /modify protocol. This will force twice as many reads
> or writes to a BOMS
> device.
> 
> Still usable. It is esentially a DOS on a chip. Maybe the Vinculum 2
> firmware can be modified
> to read and write long filenames is uncertain yet.
> 
> I am not sure if M$ patented or copyrighted the long file name
> algorithm. If patented then it is
> soon to run out. Copyrighted would require royalties to M$ for usage of
> their algorithm. Now
> Linux is a UNIX derivative and has had long file names before M$ if I
> remember correctly.
> 
> 
> Maybe this will help clear things up a bit.
> 
> james
> 
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco

Yep, makes sense to me. Not sure if you can leverage the open source codebase, but even still I doubt we're talking about real licensing issues here or just limitations of the toolset.

Is it patented? Probably. Doesn't seem to have stopped anyone from using it from what I can see thus far. And I surely doubt anyone's interested in the scale of devices we're talking about anyway :)