I can't agree with this at all. I just went over to a Windows 95
machine and created a file called "Something,Something" with the
Windows 95 Explorer. It handles commas in the filename just fine.
I can't say if this is true for command.com, but it is not a limitation
of vfat on Windows 95.
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.961018002109.846A-100000@gytha.demon.co.uk>,
Bryn Paul Arnold Jones <bpaj@gytha.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Don't you just love MS, vfat is a posix.1 complient fs (I think posix.1),
>but Win95 can't handle all the chars you can stuff in the file names. ie
>vfat is posix compliant, but Win95's filesystem code isn't.
Could you point me to a reference that claims vfat is supposed to
be posix compliant? I've never seen that claim in Microsoft documentation,
and I looked for it. On the contrary, I saw something that said the
lack of hard links makes it incompatible with posix.1. NTFS is posix
compliant, however.
Gordon Chaffee
chaffee@plateau.cs.berkeley.edu