because unlike ext2, FAT filesystems are extremely prone to fragmentation.
And who ever said "can't live without"? I want EVERY app I currently use
to work with the filesystem. This is not unrealistic, as UMSDOS already
works fine.
> they do work with vfat. Try it. Your DOS apps will mangle the
> permissions and groups anyway, so you might be better off with
^^^^^
If you run windows, which I do not.
And my DOS apps will NOT mangle the permissions and groups with umsdos.
They currently do not. The groups and permissions are stored seperate of
the fat filesystem (which should be the same with long filenames, as it is
in umsdos). All new files are already given global mode 600 permissions
in Linux until I explicitly declare them readable.
> pure vfat. You can set global permissions without umsdos.
Different files carry different permissions. I run a multi-user system,
and security is a heavy concern. Some files need to be seen and read, some
don't. I can't just set global permissions....
> Ummm? If you run uvfat and the --linux-.--- file has a different
> long name than the real vfat directory, what should happen?
> The long file names should be stored in _one_ place.
you misunderstood me. Re-read this and see if you can get a clue:
> > separating the long filename data from the rest of it (permissions,
> > groups, times, etc) is only going to make it harder to all get back
> > into the same spot later on after moving files.
you are thinking that I'm on a vfat filesystem, but for the last time, I'm
NOT. Therefore the vfat filename will not be side by side with the
--linux-.--- filename. I agree, I just got done saying that the lfns
should be stored in one place. I personally think they should be stored in
the same place too (the same place as all the other unix-only
information).
UVFAT makes sense ONLY if you need the long filename information outside
of Linux. And if you're a dumb fuckhead and run Windows 95 or some stupid
shit operating system like that, uvfat is great for you. But in the
process of being great, if butt rapes everyone who hasn't converted and
has no plans to convert to "Windows 95". I have DOS on my system for only
a few reasons. I have found Linux replacements for EVERY program I use,
but most of them are inadequate compared to the DOS equivilents that I
don't want to throw away. The recent turn towards making every Linux
application an X application is also pissing me off. Find a single good
MPEG, AVI and QuickTime player that is non-X....
Windows is the last thing I would pollute my system with. That is why I
refuse to convert to a windows propietory disk format, let alone a shitty
one, just because a few people want to be dickheads.
There is no reason to drop umsdos support at this time. UVFAT is NOT (I
repeat, NOT) a perfect replacement for UMSDOS. If it was, I would convert
right away. I'm all for improved standards, but the benefits of uvfat are
only for Win95, and the disadvantages only for users of umsdos who don't
use Windows.
> > converting every FAT partition I encounter to vfat is a huge
> > problem, waste of time and convienience to me
> Plain FAT is only a special case of vfat. No conversion needed.
conversion from umsdos to uvfat, moron.
> Like it has already been dropped? Where have you been this past year?
I've been using 2.1.44, the last kernel that it wasn't broken in.
> Consider that Linux 2.2 will be in use from about 1998 to 2001.
> Keeping long filename baggage in the --linux-.--- file is not good.
> The vfat filesystem also has extra timestamps, which we currently
what a bunch of bullshit.
It is completely non-Linux to just drop support for someone. That is what
companies like Microsoft do every day. Many people run Linux on old 386
and 486 class machines, because it is the only operating system that runs
decently on them.
> duplicate. Today, DOS 6 is uncommon. It will decline quickly over
> the next year as people install Windows 98 and upgrade hardware.
DOS 6 is uncommon my ass. Maybe you just started using computers this May,
but I can tell you that it is not a minority of Linux users that does not
and will not run Windows 98. MANY people (I'd give you a number, but I
doubt you can count that high), run DOS 6 and not Windows.
> The umsdos system is really meant for demo installations and other
> temporary use. Doing that job well is more important than supporting
uhm, no. The umsdos filesystem is an extention that lets you use
Unix-specific features on a FAT partition. While this was primarily
invented to reduce the need of partitioning, it also carries the benefit
that you can share files between DOS and Linux easily, while retaining the
Long Filenames on the UNIX system. uvfat lets you do the same, but under a
Windows OS, it lets you use the same long filenames as in Linux, and vice
versa.
> an obsolete Linux-specific hack on officially dead Microsoft
> filesystems that we all hate anyway.
uhm....no
uvfat is just as obsolete as umsdos if that is indeed the case.
uvfat and umsdos have completely different purposes. VFAT is a very bad
hack by Microsoft to allow long file names in the FAT filesystem, which
was developed by Digital Research. FAT is technically more reliable than
VFAT, as in VFAT the long filenames are stored as 'bad' directory entries,
and with weird-ass moving of files around, you can get certain files to
get certain deleted files filenames. And among other things, with FATs
limit of 64 directory entries in the root directory, who knows what
happens when you have a lot of long filenames in the root directory of a
VFAT partition.
VFAT is strictly Microsoft. FAT may be just as well, but it's the only
thing that every DOS tool and program officially support.
Lets pretend you DON'T have Win95 installed. What benefits would uvfat
give you with just dos? none...in fact, it would be a big pain in the ass
instead.
> Linux hackers are expected to use ext2 and experimental filesystems.
and guess what filesystem my partitions use? ext2. But for the
aformentioned reasons, I keep DOS on my system for rare but needed use.
Most of the time when I use DOS I am doing maintainence or emergency
maintainence anyway, which is why I need my direct-disk-access tools to
work.
> We've already lost the ext and xia filesystems -- even though I still
> remember installing Slackware on the xia filesystem. It is dead history.
ext and xia were obsoleted by ext2. This is not the case with uvfat. This
is like dropping support for 2 button mice, in favor of the 3 button
microsoft standard. "upgrade your mouse"
geez....
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu