Re: umsdos/uvfat

Albert D. Cahalan (acahalan@cs.uml.edu)
Sun, 8 Feb 1998 23:49:54 -0500 (EST)


Toby Reed <root@porknet.ml.org> writes:

>> pure vfat. You can set global permissions without umsdos.
>
> Different files carry different permissions. I run a multi-user system,

I'm sure some of your multiple users would prefer a nice fast
POSIX filesystem like ext2. Others may like the umsdos "feature"
that lets any user create a directory that root can't remove.

You don't reboot a real multi-user system in DOS.

> The recent turn towards making every Linux application an X
> application is also pissing me off. Find a single good
> MPEG, AVI and QuickTime player that is non-X....

You're getting obsolete.

> Windows is the last thing I would pollute my system with.

Plan: install it, disable the boot logo (edit msdos.sys),
disable the GUI boot (edit msdos.sys), remove all of the GUI.
Just leave C:\Windows\Command to have the DOS commands.

>> Consider that Linux 2.2 will be in use from about 1998 to 2001.
>> Keeping long filename baggage in the --linux-.--- file is not good.
>> The vfat filesystem also has extra timestamps, which we currently
>
> what a bunch of bullshit.
>
> It is completely non-Linux to just drop support for someone.

Oh really? I used to have a Xia filesystem. Linux 2.1 does not
support that or the original ext filesystem.

The Linux way: maintain your own patch.

> Many people run Linux on old 386 and 486 class machines,
> because it is the only operating system that runs decently on them.

It runs decently with ext2. After you decide to keep Linux,
you are supposed to install it on a proper unix filesystem.

>> duplicate. Today, DOS 6 is uncommon. It will decline quickly over
>> the next year as people install Windows 98 and upgrade hardware.
>
> DOS 6 is uncommon my ass.

Hmmm... I haven't seen it running for about 2 years.

> it is not a minority of Linux users that does not and will not
> run Windows 98.

Sure, they run Linux. They might run NT if they need too.

> MANY people (I'd give you a number, but I doubt you can
> count that high), run DOS 6 and not Windows.

Over the next few years? Remember, Linux 2.2 is not out yet.
Think about the midpoint of the Linux 2.2 life.

> VFAT is a very bad hack by Microsoft to allow long file names

It may be gross, but it is an excellent hack.

> in the FAT filesystem, which was developed by Digital Research.

Oh, maybe you don't like the SUBDIRECTORY support Microsoft added?

> And among other things, with FATs limit of 64 directory entries
> in the root directory,

There is no such limit, even in FAT16. If you care, add code to
expand the root directory as needed. (hack the "superblock")
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu