Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Feb 1998 21:39:20 -0500 (EST) | From | James Mastros <> | Subject | Re: umsdos/uvfat |
| |
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Mitch Davis wrote: [...] > My two cents worth: > > I run a system with DOS 6.22. So vfat is very dubious benefit. Why? I don't think people are getting this. Windows 95 is NOT required to use vfat. Windows 95 is required to read the long file names under DOS, but having them be there dosn't mess anything up (not quite correct -- it will mess up disk-checkers (who will see them (the vfat extentions) as illegal dir. entries), and defragmentors (who will remove them silently)).
> I've made a point of always running the newest, development kernels. > I compiled and ran most of the 0.99 series kernels from .10 up to the > last days of .15y. Same for the 1.1 series, and the 1.3 series. I'm glad to hear it. I don't have nearly as much experiance with Linux as many people here: my first kernel was 2.0.0. The first software upgrade I did over straight slackware was to upgrade the kernel to the newest available: 2.1.25, I think. Since, I have used 1 stable kernel -- 2.0.30, between when I installed Linux on my new computer, and my first compile on it: the kernel.
> I kept up with 2.1 until about 2.55, but have stopped doing so because > things like umsdos have been broken (I now use 2.0.33, my first ever > stable kernel). So why didn't you fix it then? You obviously had enough experiance, and it wouldn't have been to hard then, but now there is change piled upon change.
> PS to all: I don't have time to work on umsdos, but I'm willing to help > test it. Sigh... I don't have time to work on it, and I don't have the inclanation to fix it. I might start work on it anyway.
-=- James Mastros -- "I'd feel worse if it was the first time. I'd feel better if it was the last." -=- "(from some Niven book, doubtless not original there)" (qtd. by Chris Smith)
| |