Re: FS Module Conversion From 2.4 to 2.6?
- From: Joseph2k <joseph2k@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:12:26 GMT
Kasper Dupont wrote:
> Doug Mitton wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the response. Looking at exisiting filesystems is what I
>> have started doing but I started with vfat and hfs and got a little
>> over-whelmed.
>
> FAT sucks. It is so complicted because every new version
> was almost compatible with the previous while adding some
> new feature which FAT was not really designed to handle
> in the first place.
>
> The result is a file system which is much more complicated
> than for example minix. Yet FAT does not have all the
> features minix does and you shouldn't even expect any
> decent performance from FAT.
>
> At least the minix fs implementation in Linux only supports
> two different versions of the minix file system. In
> comparision before the first Linux version saw the light
> of day FAT had already been modified at least four times
> to do things it was not designed to do. (And the worst was
> yet to come).
>
I din't think so. FAT has gone terminal and we will _have_ to deal with
NTFS and its successors.
I predict that M$ will discontinue FAT support in a release or two.
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen Die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.
--Shiller
.
- Prev by Date: Hi..Challenging problem and doubt
- Next by Date: Re: The best way to delete files inside a general archive ??
- Previous by thread: Hi..Challenging problem and doubt
- Next by thread: Re: The best way to delete files inside a general archive ??
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
