Re: umsdos/uvfat

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
6 Feb 1998 08:54:57 GMT

Followup to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980205191829.1205Q-100000@jennifer-unix.dyn.ml.org>
By author: James Mastros <root@jennifer-unix.dyn.ml.org>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> From the POV of DOS, vfat and fat are the same thing. DOS sees some
> illegal directory entries, and it ignores them. Most programs should do the
> same. The exceptions are programs that are designed to re-write entries
> (sorters and defragmenters, primarly), and those that are designed to test
> for bad entries. Anything else that dosn't ignore them is buggy.
>

Delete a file. Create a new file. Voila, the new file got the old
file's long filename...

vfat is a *much* worse hack than umsdos. Personally, I would suggest
ignoring this Micro$oft monstrosity as much as possible.

-hpa

-- 
    PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD  1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74
    See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key
        I am Bahá'í -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/
   "To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Les Misérables
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu