Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:54:45 +0100 | From | Matija Nalis <> | Subject | Re: umsdos/uvfat |
| |
On Sun, Feb 01, 1998 at 09:29:36PM -0500, James Mastros wrote: > On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Matija Nalis wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 31, 1998 at 06:43:32PM -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > > On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 "C. Jasper Spaans" <spaans@vvtp.tn.tudelft.nl> > > > > > > This is where *u*vfat comes in (reread Albert's post carefully). uvfat > > > would add permissions -- and maybe other POSIXy features -- to vfat, so > > > that we can reclaim that horrible vfat partition as linux-usable space. > > > > There are few good things about umsdos: > > > > 1) not all world has converted yet to Win95, some still has only old DOS > > partitions around. Which work without ugly vfat thingies. > So? We convert them to vfat. All but the most low-level (defragmenters, > fsckers) will work fine.
And volume labelers, disk usage statistics programs, many AV programs that skip dos to avoid being affected by stealth viruses, fast catalog/find programs, directory sorters, disk editors, some copy protected programs and quite a few other things.
> > 2) I can use any old dos tool or anything that doesn't have a clue about > > umsdos to zip, copy, or whatever whole directory structures, and then > > unzip/copy them somewhere else, and whoa, without any trouble all my long > > names, permissions, owners etc. are there. > OK. This is a valid point... but any operations within Linux will work just > fine, so you can "zip, copy, or whatever", so long as you do it with
Yes. As long as I do it all from linux I may just as well format it as ext2.
> lfn-aware tools from dos, or any tools from within linux.
Yes, lfn-aware tools for dos. I may as well get ext2tools and other ext2-aware tools for dos and get over that dos partition. Heck, I could put all on ext2 disk and boot dos from DOSEMU (which I tend to do most of the time, anyway. Unfortunatly not all stuff works, yet)
The point is, why should users who never used nor intend to use win95 should be forced to use vfat and create a bunch of problems for themselves for no reason other than make things even more ugly and less usefull.
Sure, win95 users may find uvfat alternative more useful for them, but than, I think it should only be one of the alternatives. I for one am working actively to get umsdosfs back working in 2.1.x so it would be in 2.2.
-- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.
| |