These names tend to interfere with client side operations (NetWare disallows
them -- period -- because of known problems they cause with client software
and network client side applications). Sounds like you would rather be
"right" and win an argument rather than just fix the damn thing. I brought
this to folks attention because I've seen it affect network apps on NetWare
servers (it was a known SPD (bug) at Novell). I'll fix it myself and submit
it to Alan.
Thanks,
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon Chaffee <chaffee@cs.berkeley.edu>
To: Jeff Merkey <jmerkey@timpanogas.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: VFAT Naming Bugs
> Jeff Merkey writes:
> > He has told me there were several other issues with FASTFAT and
> > FAT32 and with going back and forth between DOS, Win98, and NT, in
> > particular, there are some issues with how NT mangles DOS short
> > names vs. how Windows 98 does it -- Linux doesn't comply with either
> > method. Compatibility between FASTFAT and DOS does not seem to be a
> > particularly a pressing issue for MS based on what I've seen and
> > know about, so your comment doesn't necessarily reflect one way or
> > the other if this could affect anyone.
>
> Who cares if the name mangling scheme is different? As long as an
> alias maps to long name with some level of probability, then who cares
> if the 10th time you have to mangle a filename matching "biteme123*"
> you get something different on NT, Linux, and Win95? Before switching
> to a new collision avoidance scheme, I think NT goes up to 'biteme~6',
> linux goes up to 'biteme~9', and I have no idea what Win98 does up to.
>
> To me, capitalization is a far more annoying difference between how
> Win95 and NT implement vfat. On NT, there are two bits for 8.3 names
> that determine capitalization. One specifies the case the 8 part of
> the name, and one specifies the case of the 3 part of the name. Win95
> ignores these bits, so try writing filenames that fit in the 8.3 space.
> Their capitalization will be inverted on NT. (And don't look at it in
> Explorer which does its own filename case handling that has nothing to
> do with what is on the disk.)
>
> > To be 100%
> > compliant with all uses of a FAT partition, it's probably better not to
use
> > these names.
>
> What a bunch of crap! OS/2 defines a bunch of reserved names, so does
> NT, so does Win95, and so do any other versions of DOS. This has nothing
> to do with compliance. Worse yet, you can define new devices that get
> reserved names. So the only 'compliant' way would be to allow no names
> to be written to the disk. I should probably throw out the reserved
> name checking entirely because it varies so much between systems that
> have FAT filesystems.
>
> - Gordon
>
> -
> 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/
>
-
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/