> Personally... I have no use for Windows, therefore, I don't > care if Windows machines cannot read/write to other > filesystems.
I do use Windows if some user programs force me to. My PICSTART Plus can program a lot of PICs, but the newer ones are not supported by any free software on that programmer. But it is a pain even to boot windows... And, I'm trying to make and sell devices that incorporate PIC controllers. They won't sell if they can not be written to on windows. > Frankly... I have no need of the write function of the > Filesystem library at all... as I do not plan to write to > the harddrives via the PICs. You don't, others do. PICs are really good in acquiring data. They're very good for logger applications. It is important to have write support to a file system. > A read-only filesystem would suffice for my needs. > > ISO9660 might be an interesting filesystem to > investigate... if it's open source. As it is called "ISO", it is an international standard. It is up to you if you accept that as "open source". If you accept to measure current in "Ampere" and not in e.g. "septillion (short scale) electrons per day", you're accepting standards like that. > Albeit it's a rather clumsy filesystem to write to. Yes, it is usually not "written" but "generated". None of the usual operating systems would easily delete, add or modify files on that file system. > How simple/difficult would it be implement a ISO9660 > filesystem on a hard drive? Generation is easy: mkisofs or genisoimage will create the file system, and dd will write it to the hard disk... I have not tried if such a hard disk mounts without complaints, but you don't want to mount it, you just want the PIC to read it. Greets, Kiste -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
