> BTW: Are you still making (going to make) the short names usable from
> the UNIX level? I'm still against it and now have a reason; With the
> arrival of devfs almost any filesystem will be able to serve as a root
> filesystem as character and block devices are no longer needed.
In case you've missed it: I *don't* change the namespace stuff in
VFAT anymore ;-) 'Nuff. If somebody wants to control the shortnames - may
them care about it.
> (Eg: Novell NCP or Amiga FFS) With the short names 'available' I for one
> would be very reluctant to try VFAT as a root filesystem. This would
> (I think) leave just the MSDOS and VFAT r/w filesystems unable to do root ...
Puhlease. First of all, AFFS is broken by design even worse than FAT.
Ditto for HFS, BTW. If you are reluctant to use VFAT as root - great. It
shouldn't be used that way. It is not case-sensitive, it has all sorts of
braindead limitations on names, doesn't support UIDs, lacks file permissions,
etc. What's the point? You can't have the whole thing on VFAT anyway. And
loopback mounting is going to suck, *especially* over *FAT - slow random
access is a bitch. It may be good for feature list, but for anything else?
Unlikely... For what I care *FAT, AFFS, HFS and probably HPFS and NTFS are
compatibility-only beasts. I.e. you may want to use them if you must share
data. You can't use them to keep the whole tree - case-sensitivity is a
must-have for any UNIX. As soon as you need the separate partition you may
use it for root too. initrd works fine for booting, so... what's the
point?
-
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/