Matija Nalis (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 2 Feb 1998 02:11:36 +0100
On Sat, Jan 31, 1998 at 06:43:32PM -0500, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 "C. Jasper Spaans" <email@example.com>
> > On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> > > Why umsdos? We get long filenames and an extra timestamp for free
> > > with vfat. The whole system can be cleaned up. The buggy hard
> > > link support can go -- this isn't our POSIX filesystem.
> > Hmm, you've got a good point here. The only problem: I want to be able to
> > specify user rights - even on my fat (umsdos) partitions.
> This is where *u*vfat comes in (reread Albert's post carefully). uvfat
> would add permissions -- and maybe other POSIXy features -- to vfat, so
> that we can reclaim that horrible vfat partition as linux-usable space.
There are few good things about umsdos:
1) not all world has converted yet to Win95, some still has only old DOS
partitions around. Which work without ugly vfat thingies.
2) I can use any old dos tool or anything that doesn't have a clue about
umsdos to zip, copy, or whatever whole directory structures, and then
unzip/copy them somewhere else, and whoa, without any trouble all my long
names, permissions, owners etc. are there.
3) It's been here for a while. There are distributions that run off the
msdos disks, that run under umsdos. Didn't seen any that does under (u)vfat.
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.