From:	Richard Dawe <richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: gdb problem or just silly me - please help
Date:	Thu, 04 May 2000 18:46:35 +0100
Organization:	Customer of Planet Online
Lines:	32
Message-ID:	<3911B77B.BB8927E6@bigfoot.com>
References:	<LLNHJEPGIHPOCAAA AT shared1-mail DOT whowhere DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	modem-143.silicon.dialup.pol.co.uk
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	news5.svr.pol.co.uk 957547264 4724 62.136.13.143 (5 May 2000 17:21:04 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	5 May 2000 17:21:04 GMT
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

"nimrod a. abing" wrote:
> I think it's downright dangerous to do the TSR/LFN thing,
> since the LFN specs are still, I don't know how to put it,
> vague. You could end up losing FAT (not that it's not a
> good thing for some people ;-)) entries or trashing your
> disk.

Well, I feel foul to a bug in Linux's FAT support and managed not to loose
any data. So I guess the severity depends on how badly it trashes you FAT
partition. I would hope the TSRs have got past the stage of seriously
trashing disks.

> Why reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Win9x/DJGPP works fine
> for me, not that I really like it.

Because there's no other way to access VFAT disk fully from DOS, since
Microsoft saw fit not to put the API in MS-DOS 7, just in DOS boxes. It's
not really re-inventing the wheel - it's more like replacing it after
loosing an old wheel. Also, if you don't like Windows '95, why should you
have to use it, just to get access to long filenames?

Without testing & development work, these LFN TSRs aren't going to get
better. (I am as guilty as the next person for not having tested them,
though.)

Bye,

-- 
Richard Dawe
richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com ICQ 47595498 http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/

- Raw text -