> There have been a couple posts questioning the usefulness of
> umsdos. If you already use Linux umsdos is pretty lame. There are
> some 200 million PC users out there that don't already use Linux.
> Most of them have DOS FAT partitions of some flavor, and a umsdos
> distribution in most cases doesn't install, it merely unpacks.
> umsdos is an important bridge. The contest between M$ and the rest
> of the world will hinge largely on how fast Linux becomes easier to
> use, IMO. On the desktop anyway. This seems to be a common view,
> although I have a very different take on what constitutes
> user-friendly than the big distros do.
> That's why my cLIeNUX mini-distro is umsdos. umsdos allows the
> curious a taste of excellence without re-partitioning.
My experience has been that a UMSDOS install is unstable, but I can
see a variant of it that would most likely be far more stable with far
fewer problems than the current UMSDOS distro is...
Basically, as I understand it, the following is true:
1. UMSDOS assumes that the underlying file system is the MSDOS
FAT file system, with its 8.3 limit on filenames.
2. UMSDOS places an extra file in every relevant directory that
provides the extra information that Linux expects to find.
I have NO problem with the latter fact - indeed, I see it as a
necessary and important step in the process. However, I have to
question the wisdom of the former fact, which doesnae make any sense
to me.
My preference would be for UMSDOS to assume the underlying file system
to be the VFAT file system, which has already done away with that 8.3
limit on filenames, as it would then have a much easier time in adding
the relevant extra properties than it does at present.
In fact, I wonder if I should have a go at that...
> A small umsdos mini-distro can be moved to an ext2 partition in
> minutes. Think of umsdos as an install utility for a real Linux.
> And a crucial piece of Linux outreach.
One ESSENTIAL requirement for that to be true is that the UMSDOS based
install is more stable than its M$ based competitors and my experience
of UMSDOS based systems currently says otherwise...
> As Linux use continues to explode, get smug with the UDI types
> perhaps, other unices perhaps, the press perhaps. Please do not get
> smug with those 200 million innocent victims.
Well said...
> untfs wouldn't be bad either. Meanwhile, I wait eagerly for a
> umsdos boot to work on my PS2 with 2.1.
I wouldnae hold your breath since, with the current rate of progress,
2.3 will be here first...
Best wishes from Riley.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/