>Shitty one: If you were implementing vfat, how would you do it? Exactly the
>same way, I'm betting. Umsdos is just as much a bad hack.
I'm running MS-DOS 5.0 (besides Linux 2.0.33). I like to sometimes store
long filenames on my FAT partition (to access them from DOS too). I use
UMSDOS and it works fine. What happens if I'd use VFAT?
When I'd delete VFAT files under DOS, MS-DOS del would leave the long
filename entries in to the directory. Right? And then I couldn't remove the
directory, because it wouldn't be empty. DIR just wouldn't show any files
in it. I would panic and think that my FAT partition has crashed.
Now, with UMSDOS there are not problems at all: UMSDOS doesn't create
strange hidden files.
UMSDOS isn't nearly as bad hack (IMHO).
I know nobody counts my vote, but I'd vote anyway to keep the UMSDOS
working.
-- | Tuukka Toivonen <tuukkat@stekt.oulu.fi> [PGP public key | Homepage: http://stekt.oulu.fi/~tuukkat/ available] | Try also finger -l tuukkat@stekt.oulu.fi | Studying information engineering at the University of Oulu +------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu