VFAT, IMHO, is a terrible kludge, which is in no way remotely compatibile
with MSDOS FAT. The fact that sometimes you may access mangled VFAT names in
MSDOS mode does not change that.
Yes, UMSDOS is a kludge also, but (again IMHO) to a much lesser degree and
also giving much more than VFAT (LFN is just one thing missing).
>way, something which the UMSDOS file system appears NOT to manage!!!
I would like if you could elaborate on this. Yes, there are some inherit
problems with UMSDOS. There are no true hardlinks, so they are emulated
pseudo-hardlinks, and as such can be confused.
UMSDOS is tolerant to creating/deleting files/dirs in MSDOS mode (that is
what umssync does), probably more than it is VFAT in MSDOS mode. It is
completly transparent to standard MSDOS tools (chkdsk, directory sorters,
etc) which is where VFAT in MSDOS mode utterly fails.
I would not say that "UMSDOS does not manage to be STABLE". In my tests, 2.0
seems stable enough, and current 2.1.x code is almost there. As a curent
maintainer of that piece of code, I would like to hear reports of problems
you had, and fix them (if possible).
>Dare I suspect that you've never used the VFAT file system yourself?
>Try the following test sometime:
<test about copying file to VFAT and using it as MSDOS deleted>
>Would you believe it, the file has a name that you can actually use,
>even though MSDOS 6.22 and earlier do NOT support long filenames...
Do you want to say that you CAN NOT access UMSDOS file in MSDOS, or did you
somehow deduced that poster above wanted to say that you cannot access VFAT
files in MSDOS ? I see no explanation for any of those reasonings.
-- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.- 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/