And volume labelers, disk usage statistics programs, many AV programs that
skip dos to avoid being affected by stealth viruses, fast catalog/find
programs, directory sorters, disk editors, some copy protected programs and
quite a few other things.
> > 2) I can use any old dos tool or anything that doesn't have a clue about
> > umsdos to zip, copy, or whatever whole directory structures, and then
> > unzip/copy them somewhere else, and whoa, without any trouble all my long
> > names, permissions, owners etc. are there.
> OK. This is a valid point... but any operations within Linux will work just
> fine, so you can "zip, copy, or whatever", so long as you do it with
Yes. As long as I do it all from linux I may just as well format it as ext2.
> lfn-aware tools from dos, or any tools from within linux.
Yes, lfn-aware tools for dos. I may as well get ext2tools and other
ext2-aware tools for dos and get over that dos partition. Heck, I could put
all on ext2 disk and boot dos from DOSEMU (which I tend to do most of the
time, anyway. Unfortunatly not all stuff works, yet)
The point is, why should users who never used nor intend to use win95 should
be forced to use vfat and create a bunch of problems for themselves for no
reason other than make things even more ugly and less usefull.
Sure, win95 users may find uvfat alternative more useful for them, but than,
I think it should only be one of the alternatives. I for one am working
actively to get umsdosfs back working in 2.1.x so it would be in 2.2.
-- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.