> Couldn't you just replace "msdos" in /etc/fstab with "vfat" ?
> Doesn't it work ?
If only it were that simple... (sorry, above taken out of context)
One problem I just ran head-first into is that the 'vfat' and 'umsdos'
filesystem types are completely distinct. Therefore, you can get
Win95-ish long filenames and no perms, and you can get unix-ish long
filenames perms, but you can't get both.
I find this to be slightly strange. What I understand of the current
hierarchy for DOS filesystems is this: (turned sideways)
/------- MSDOS
VFS------FAT------<-----UMSDOS
\-------- VFAT
So the VFAT code is in a distinct module (if you use them), totally
separate from the UMSDOS and MSDOS code.
Doesn't it seem like the code to handle VFAT should be merged back one
level into the generic FAT support? That way you pick MSDOS or UMSDOS,
and the FAT driver decides whether or not the filesystem has VFAT. Then
you can do UMSDOS stuff on top of VFAT.
In that case, the UMSDOS code would simply use the long filenames stored
in the VFAT structures and ignore the space reserved in the --linux-.---
file.
I don't know as much as I'd like about the kernel and the VFS, but I do
know that from the user perspective that this is quite an annoyance for
those swapping with Windoze95. Please correct me (kindly) if anything I
mentioned is just plain stupid... ;-)
TTYL,
Omega
Erik Walthinsen - Programmer, webmaster, 3D artist, etc. __
__ / /\
/ \ omega@sequent.com Work: (503)578-5314 / / \
| | M E G A omega@teleport.com Home: (503)281-4281 / / /\ \
_\ /_ psu12113@odin.cc.pdx.edu Majoring in CS / / /\ \ \
/ /_/__\ \ \
Omega Station: http://www.teleport.com/~omega/ /________\ \ \
Info on Linux, Graphics, Descent, Laptops, etc. \___________\/