Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:46:22 -0800 (PST) | From | Gordon Chaffee <> | Subject | Re: umsdos/uvfat |
| |
H. Peter Anvin writes: > Delete a file. Create a new file. Voila, the new file got the old > file's long filename...
Not a very accurate statement. I'd suggest trying it before making this sort of misleading claim. If you want to make this claim precisely, you could say this:
1. Create a vfat file that has a longname and a short alias 2. Remount filesystem as msdos 3. Delete filename by its short alias name. 4. Create a new file (different name) 5. Remount filesystem as vfat 6. Look at directory. You should only see the new file. This is because there is a checksum that binds the short alias to the longname. However, it is only an 8 bit checksum, so in 1 out of 256 cases, the new name will be linked with the original long filename under vfat.
> vfat is a *much* worse hack than umsdos. Personally, I would suggest > ignoring this Micro$oft monstrosity as much as possible.
They are very similar hacks. I thought that umsdos was a very clever hack on top of msdos, and I used to use it quite regularly on a very limited space laptop. However, I'd hardly call umsdos any better than vfat. They are both hacks serving different purposes.
- Gordon - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |