Joerg Schilling wrote: > Artem Kachitchkine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> But the second approach is based on the wrong asumption that UDF is always >>> the >>> best choice. >>> >> Yes, it's a tradeoff. I know, it's a foreign concept over here, but >> sometimes things have to be done that way in the competitive, >> resource-limited environment. If the wrong assumption is consistent with >> any other major OS on the planet, it's the right assumption in the eyes >> of a casual user, which is the kind of person the default behavior is >> designed for. For the expert minority, some handles can be provided. >> > > Well, today we know about the problem: > > - UDF limits file size to ~200 GB while ISO-9660 allows files up to > 8 TB. > > - When in 2-3 years otical media > 200 GB becomes available, mkisofs > will create hybrid filesystems that include the bigger files only in > the ISO-9660 part but not in the UDF part. > > This has not been forseen 10 years ago when UDF was created. > > What will happen in 2-3 years when the problem hits again? >
At that time folks needing to create >200GB files on optical media will hit against the UDF limitation and will not use it at all. They will just stick to ISO9660 and it will work just fine. Regards, Moinak. > > Jörg > > _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
