> 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.
Unfortunately, no one seems to be working on uvfat.
--Scott
@ @
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-oOO-(_)-OOo-=-=-=-=-=
C. Scott Ananian: cananian@lcs.mit.edu / Declare the Truth boldly and
Laboratory for Computer Science/Crypto / without hindrance.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology /META-PARRESIAS AKOLUTOS:Acts 28:31
-.-. .-.. .. ..-. ..-. --- .-. -.. ... -.-. --- - - .- -. .- -. .. .- -.
PGP key available via finger and from http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~cananian