This is incredible logic; you don't drop support for an existing userbase
and say "well, you can just convert to vfat...". There is a valid reason
for a lot of people not upgrading to vfat-aware systems immediately. You
are also discarding support for users who may very well be actively
-using- umsdos.
You don't toss support for a feature that costs you nothing (or very
little) to keep around. This sounds like the arguments I've heard from
people who say that support for the 386 architecture should be dropped.
Again, it costs very little to keep support, but still people argue that
everyone should have upgraded years ago. Frankly, people don't want to
throw away perfectly good hardware. Nor do they want to discard working
software. That's the whole point of umsdos and uvfat; to support those who
want to work with Linux on an existing system without serious
inconvenience to their *existing, working system*.
> > 3) It's been here for a while. There are distributions that run off the
> > msdos disks, that run under umsdos. Didn't seen any that does under (u)vfat.
> Yeha, so? They can stay with 2.0, or they can upgrade to 2.2 and uvfat (not
> all that hard, really. If nothing else, have a bootstrap with all 8.3 names
> that extracts the rest with info-zip for DOS (does lfns), or under Linux).
Again, you're suggesting that the development team toss support for a real
existing userbase. This is incredibly poor project management, to say the
least; pulling a feature that people are actively using without any kind
of notice in a release is not a way to keep your userbase happy.
-- -------------------. emarshal at logic.net .--------------------------------- Edward S. Marshall `-----------------------' http://www.logic.net/~emarshal/Spammers: Please email my blacklisting service at "spam@logic.net".