At 11:59 AM 3/31/2009, Blair Campbell wrote:
> > So why cant we just create a "database/table - file" that allows
> > lookup in a second area, either a file on
> > the hard drive or a separate partition. then based on the
> > file/directory "ID" and store that in the database table completely
> > separate from the FAT if we don't touch fat it should be fine. If we
> > are using a different method and system we are safe.
>In reality, though, linux filesystem drivers have been using this
>method of accessing/writing long filenames for years; if Microsoft
>were to go after an operating system, it would be linux first.  And as
>Eric pointed out to me, they seem to go more after embedded devices
>that use long filenames on FAT filesystems.  So really, I don't think
>there's anything to worry about.

Well, as I tried to point out in my other reply, the problem is that 
if you want to be at least "write compatible" with the Windows 9x/ME 
way of long file names, you do not have another way to do it.

Mac HFS had long file names (ok, 31 characters instead of the old 
8.3) before, so does Unix or other operating systems. But what is 
sought by most  people is a way of handling long file names the way 
Windows/M$ does and that you can not really handle without 
interferring with the patents. I am not 100% certain but the reason 
that Linux get's away with this is that here the cross-licensing 
between Microsoft and Novell comes into play...


Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to