> > In article <199610172047.QAA29458@nic.ott.hookup.net>,
> > Andrew E. Mileski <aem@nic.ott.hookup.net> wrote:
> > >I agree (for what it's worth). I get this all time with many
> > >bad characters in the name - seems the vfat system accepts
> > >almost anything, yet Win95 barfs (can list it, but can't otherwise
> > >open or rename it).
> >
> > I can't agree with this at all. I just went over to a Windows 95
> > machine and created a file called "Something,Something" with the
> > Windows 95 Explorer. It handles commas in the filename just fine.
> > I can't say if this is true for command.com, but it is not a limitation
> > of vfat on Windows 95.
>
> Well perhaps the Win95 Explorer (or command.com) can do this,
> but that wasn't the point of my message...I'm sure Win95 can
> handle it's own fs :-)
>
> The problem is that Linux VFAT allows names that Win95 doesn't.
> I'd call that a bug in Linux, no matter how stupid Win95 is.
>
> --
> Andrew E. Mileski mailto:aem@ott.hookup.net
> Linux Plug-and-Play Kernel Project http://www.redhat.com/linux-info/pnp/
> XFree86 Matrox Team http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~ajv/xf86-matrox.html
>
> --SAA19195.845678011/aem.ott.hookup.net--
The point is that under DOS you can create filenames with
commas, etc in. Anything legal in DOS must be legal in VFAT.
However, you can legally make filenames (in DOS) that DOS cannot
deal with. This is broken and stupid. Linux has to be
compatible or intelligent, pick one. So pick compatible. If
you want intelligent, you use ext2.
--kmb203@psu.edu---------------Debian/GNU--1.1---Linux--2.1.3---
Develop free apps? http://www.jagunet.com/~braddock/fslu/org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that everything's getting better despite evidence to
the contrary. The evidence must be investigated. You can prove
anything with evidence.
-- Steve Turner, "Creed"