Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Aug 1999 04:04:21 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: Your backup is unsafe! |
| |
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Robert de Bath wrote:
> 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/
| |