Unless "defragger" is one of the apps you can't live without (why?),
they do work with vfat. Try it. Your DOS apps will mangle the
permissions and groups anyway, so you might be better off with
pure vfat. You can set global permissions without umsdos.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> that if support for umsdos is dropped from the kernel by some
> godforsaken act of stupidity
Like it has already been dropped? Where have you been this past year?
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
duplicate. Today, DOS 6 is uncommon. It will decline quickly over
the next year as people install Windows 98 and upgrade hardware.
The umsdos system is really meant for demo installations and other
temporary use. Doing that job well is more important than supporting
an obsolete Linux-specific hack on officially dead Microsoft
filesystems that we all hate anyway.
Linux hackers are expected to use ext2 and experimental filesystems.
We've already lost the ext and xia filesystems -- even though I still
remember installing Slackware on the xia filesystem. It is dead history.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu