Date:	Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:38:45 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<2110-Fri24Aug2001103845+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<10108231824.AA18249@clio.rice.edu> (sandmann@clio.rice.edu)
Subject:	Re: ntlfn on win 2k
References:	<10108231824 DOT AA18249 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:24:35 -0500 (CDT)
> 
> You can load ntlfn.08 on Windows 2000.  It fixes many lfn bugs.  So, if you
> don't have time to rebuild images, load ntlfn instead.  Why didn't
> I think of that before?
> 
> The free implementation is better than the one you pay for ...

Like I said: perhaps we should sell NTLFN to Microsoft, and recover
some of Andrew's and Wojciech's costs ;-)

Seriously, though: I guess the difference is in how the LFN support is
tested.  NTLFN was tested by building and running DJGPP programs,
which is quite a demanding suite of apps, since our libc calls about
every LFN function that's been documented.  I'm guessing that MS's
testing was much less extensive, and probably didn't even include
DJGPP (what? why should we cater to freeware packages?).

- Raw text -