Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 25 Oct 1996 02:35:17 -0400 (EDT) | From | Charlie Ross <> | Subject | Re: Win95 partitions |
| |
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Erik Walthinsen (Omega) wrote:
> So the VFAT code is in a distinct module (if you use them), totally > separate from the UMSDOS and MSDOS code. > > Doesn't it seem like the code to handle VFAT should be merged back one > level into the generic FAT support? That way you pick MSDOS or UMSDOS, > and the FAT driver decides whether or not the filesystem has VFAT. Then > you can do UMSDOS stuff on top of VFAT.
I dont know if anyone cares, but I agree with this totally, I am using win95 and linux side by side, and it seems that the vfat code could replace the fat code... Or am I wrong?
Shouldn't vfat kind of be a superset of fat? it fat cant read vfats long names, but vfat should read fats long names...
so can't the current structure:
msdos / vfs ---- fat - umsdos \ vfat
be changed to:
msdos / vfs ---- vfat - umsdos
isnt this exactly what win95 did?
-Chuck
s253343@gettysburg.edu (717)-337-8212
|  |