> > Is there something against putting umsdos on top of vfat? That way a Win95
> > user would be able to see long filenames from Linux. It would be nice to add
> > that facility even before the 2.0/1.4 release. All that would be needed is
> > to mantain compatibility in the umsdos files, but not care about the long name
> > in them (instead use the vfat longnames). What do you think?
>
> Yesterday I was trying to set up Linux on a machine on which Windows 95
> was installed. I had installed Xdenu on it already, but wanted to put
> in something newer and more complete. I attached its IDE disk to
> my PC (by itself on the secondary controller), booted 1.3.62 which was
> compiled with
>
> CONFIG_FAT_FS=y
> CONFIG_MSDOS_FS=y
> CONFIG_VFAT_FS=y
> CONFIG_UMSDOS_FS=y
>
> did a "mount -t umsdos /dev/hdc1 /mnt" and it looked fine. I replaced
Why not "-t vfat"? You had Windows 95 with VFAT on that disk.
> everything in the UMSDOS root directory and it still looked fine. Then I
> went to DOS 6.1 to try booting via loadlinx and noticed that the DOS root
> directory contained entries for ETC, USR, and so on, and so did \LINUX
> (the old stuff was still there). Thinking I could just delete the
> contents of \LINUX, I tried DOS' "del" and "deltree" commands, and a PD
> "rm" but they all choked on filenames which were garbage. Before I tried
> that, I tried using loadlinx, but the kernel panicked from not finding
> the root directory.
Working with DOS once VFAT is set up seems to be quite dangerous to
me. Use either only vfat, umsdos or msdos.
BTW: Wouldn't it seem wise to rebuild UMSDOS on VFAT? UVAT
filesystem?
Ulrich