rothwell@flyingbuttmonkeys.com (Michael Rothwell) wrote on 13.08.00 in <399741F6.F5FF936D@flyingbuttmonkeys.com>:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > > Alexander Viro wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sigh... OK, I really need more coffee. Let me put it that way: this
> > > > behaviour (names migrating as the result of operation on different
> > > > names) has really nasty implications. On VFAT we had it due to short
> > > > names. Your proposal on NTFS promises the same sort of fun. Experience
> > > > from dealing with the shortname problems on VFAT makes me rather
> > > > unhappy about your proposal.
> > >
> > > AFAIK, NTFS also supports "short names." Ug. Lee.
> >
> > I dearly hope that SAMBA will be able to live without them (that, IIRC,
> > was the reason to keep them on VFAT).
>
> All-NT systems don't use them; only 9x. So if
If by all-NT systems you mean clients which *never* run *any* program that
*ever* wants to do anything with short filenames, you may be right.
Sadly, I don't think systems like that exist except in theory. I've
certainly never seen any. And I don't expect that to change in the next
ten years.
On the contrary, I see far too many programs running on NT that just can't
deal with long filenames.
> you're serving to all NT clients, no problem.
> That won't be the case for several years at least,
> though. I don't know if Samba could do its own
> name mangling to make up for a lack of it in Linux
> NTFS or not.
Sure. That's what it does in ext2, after all; and I know from personal
experience that it mostly works. Programs that need short names for long-
named objects and then save those names will get into trouble, though.
MfG Kai
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:34 EST