lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: umsdos/uvfat
James Mastros wrote:
>
> > I can't stand dealing with vfat since whenever I trade files with anyone I
> > end up with Fejakoea.~1
> That depends on how you translate filenames. I should think that we would
> want to do the NameNumericTale=0 equivelent... that is, keep the first 8 and
> the last 3 characters of the file as the shortname.

This would *have* to be an option. Windows 95 hardcodes in several
places the short names of system programs and utilities and the like in
very stupid places. You could do damage to a Windows system if any files
were renamed or translated to this system. Also note that this is just
as much of a problem if you turn off this translation inside of Win95.
:)

Also, off topic, but wouldn't it be just as nice or nicer to implement a
generic UNIX-features layer that could be "overlaid" on top of any FS to
give long filename, permissions, etc support in a neat and generic
fashion? Not that it's likely to happen now. I looked into this once and
I think the way that Linux registers new disk formats would interfere
with this approach at this time. (Also, the operations structor is
stored one-per-fs rather than one-per-mountpoint. That also makes it
diffcult.) I could be wrong about this, of course. I didn't spend a heck
of a lot of time on it because of other projects.

Joe Pranevich

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.528 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site