Re: Win95 partitions

Charlie Ross (
Fri, 25 Oct 1996 02:35:17 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Erik Walthinsen (Omega) wrote:

> 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.

I dont know if anyone cares, but I agree with this totally, I am using
win95 and linux side by side, and it seems that the vfat code could replace
the fat code... Or am I wrong?

Shouldn't vfat kind of be a superset of fat?
it fat cant read vfats long names, but vfat should read fats long names...

so can't the current structure:

vfs ---- fat - umsdos

be changed to:

vfs ---- vfat - umsdos

isnt this exactly what win95 did?