-=> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote to The Natural Philosopher <=-

AAS> CP/M did not have a heirachial directory system. The CP/M
AAS> filesystem was single level with user IDs and drives being the only
AAS> separations, user IDs were not visible and a little strange by modern
AAS> standards - there were only 15 of them with 0 being everyone.

AAS> CP/M filenames were like A:THING.COM - no slashes in any
AAS> direction.

Later versions of CP/M did have a hierarchial directory structure. But I need
to do some research to see if they added that before or after MS-DOS came out.

The first version of MS-DOS did NOT support sub-directories.

.... Kinky: Using A Feather. Sick: Using The Whole Chicken
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 13:25:03 +1200
nospam.Ron.Lauzon@f383.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Ron Lauzon) wrote:

> -=> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote to The Natural Philosopher <=-
>
> AAS> CP/M did not have a heirachial directory system. The CP/M
> AAS> filesystem was single level with user IDs and drives being the only
> AAS> separations, user IDs were not visible and a little strange by
> AAS> modern standards - there were only 15 of them with 0 being everyone.
>
> AAS> CP/M filenames were like A:THING.COM - no slashes in any
> AAS> direction.
>
> Later versions of CP/M did have a hierarchial directory structure. But I
> need to do some research to see if they added that before or after MS-DOS
> came out.

I'd like to see details - the CP/M-86 filesystem on the ACT Sirius
I used didn't have one.

> The first version of MS-DOS did NOT support sub-directories.

IIRC they came into MS-DOS along with hard disc support in 2.0.

Heirarchial filesystems go back a *long* way, there are papers from
the late 1950s but Multics is generally considered to have had the first
full blown version.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:20220213202302.63391603e153cdcb66cdc6ba@eircom.net...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 13:25:03 +1200
> nospam.Ron.Lauzon@f383.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Ron Lauzon) wrote:
>
>> -=> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote to The Natural Philosopher <=-
>>
>> AAS> CP/M did not have a heirachial directory system. The CP/M
>> AAS> filesystem was single level with user IDs and drives being the only
>> AAS> separations, user IDs were not visible and a little strange by
>> AAS> modern standards - there were only 15 of them with 0 being
>> everyone.
>>
>> AAS> CP/M filenames were like A:THING.COM - no slashes in any
>> AAS> direction.
>>
>> Later versions of CP/M did have a hierarchial directory structure. But I
>> need to do some research to see if they added that before or after MS-DOS
>> came out.
>
> I'd like to see details - the CP/M-86 filesystem on the ACT Sirius
> I used didn't have one.
>
>> The first version of MS-DOS did NOT support sub-directories.
>
> IIRC they came into MS-DOS along with hard disc support in 2.0.
>
> Heirarchial filesystems go back a *long* way, there are papers from
> the late 1950s but Multics is generally considered to have had the first
> full blown version.

Blimey. Multics. I haven't heard that name for a long time. I had fond
memories of using it at university in the early 1980s. I started out doing
physics before changing after a year to elec eng. But I retained the Multics
logon that the physics course had given me, so I used to go to the computer
room in the late evening to learn about what the OS offered and what the
various plotters and printers were capable of. Why the late evening? Well
everyone was allocated a quota of logon time which was (in my case) pretty
minimal, but chargeable hours ended at (I think) 9 PM and all logon time
until the following morning was unlimited. It was amazing how many sad nerds
there were waiting in the computer room until the clock (metaphorically)
struck 9.

When I started in my first job in 1986, our department had Unix (BSD, I
think) servers and I remember noticing a lot of similarities with Multics,
though I can't remember what those similarities were.