Not a very accurate statement. I'd suggest trying it before making
this sort of misleading claim. If you want to make this claim precisely,
you could say this:
1. Create a vfat file that has a longname and a short alias
2. Remount filesystem as msdos
3. Delete filename by its short alias name.
4. Create a new file (different name)
5. Remount filesystem as vfat
6. Look at directory. You should only see the new file. This is
because there is a checksum that binds the short alias to the
longname. However, it is only an 8 bit checksum, so in 1 out
of 256 cases, the new name will be linked with the original
long filename under vfat.
> vfat is a *much* worse hack than umsdos. Personally, I would suggest
> ignoring this Micro$oft monstrosity as much as possible.
They are very similar hacks. I thought that umsdos was a very clever hack
on top of msdos, and I used to use it quite regularly on a very limited
space laptop. However, I'd hardly call umsdos any better than vfat.
They are both hacks serving different purposes.
- Gordon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu