Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 03 Feb 1998 02:14:18 -0500 | From | Joe Pranevich <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |