lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: umsdos/uvfat
James Mastros wrote:
>
> > This is incredible logic; you don't drop support for an existing userbase
> > and say "well, you can just convert to vfat...". There is a valid reason
> > for a lot of people not upgrading to vfat-aware systems immediately. You
> > are also discarding support for users who may very well be actively
> > -using- umsdos.
> Hmm... what valid reason?
>
> > You don't toss support for a feature that costs you nothing (or very
> > little) to keep around.
> But you see, it dosn't. Umsdos hasn't been working for at least 6 months,
> if you havn't been paying attention. It has a definate non-zero cost
> associated with fixing it, and I think there are very few cases where uvfat
> couldn't replace it.

My two cents worth:

I run a system with DOS 6.22. So vfat is very dubious benefit.
I have used the msdos fs, then umsdos, for all of my Linux days.

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 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).

This broken functionality is already costing quiet testers of bleeding
edge kernels, like myself.

Mitch.

PS to all: I don't have time to work on umsdos, but I'm willing to help
test it.
--
| mailto:mjd@nsmd.aus.hp.com | Not an official view of: |
| mailto:mjd@alphalink.com.au | Telecom Management Divn |
| Anti-SPAM trials now in test | Hewlett Packard Australia |

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.651 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site