Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Sep 1998 23:21:02 +0300 (EET DST) | From | Jukka Tapani Santala <> | Subject | Re: [Offtopic] FAT filesystem specs and behaviour |
| |
On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> According to several sources, space _is_ invalid in MS- and IBM-DOS at >> least. (IBM DOS Technical Reference, page 2-4; Using IBM DOS 4.0, page 23; >> Microsoft MS-DOS 4.0 Users Guide and Reference, pages 16 thru 17; >> Microsoft MS-DOS 5.0 Users Guide and Reference, pages 69 through 70) The >> fact that some questionable(?) process lets you create them doesn't change > The manuals say so, but the OS disagrees. COMMAND.COM doesn't like > it, though. Note that you're reading the *user guide*, which isn't > exactly a spec.
Note all of the books referenced also have the word "Reference" in them, like "Technical Reference" etc. Also, I thought we were talking of the times the command-interpreted (command.com) _was_ the OS at least to a very high degree ;) But, well, there's the interrupts...
However, my references clearly say no spaces even with the interrupts. Whether they are wrong, or whether it's just a bug in the implementation to allow them I do not know, and don't have a machine around to see/test it.
However, I see at least NT and Linux (patched with the patches this thread started from, or not) deal happily with the spaces even in basic FAT records. Altough "ren f f?f" -> "ff" for example. 'ren f "f f"' works.
-Donwulff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |