Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19970507113652.35ef03e2@pop.verisim.com>
Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 11:36:52 -0400
To: OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
From: Takashi Toyooka <ttoyooka AT verisim DOT com>
Subject: Re: BIG suggestion for Opendos Features
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970507102933.23868A-100000@55-174.hy.cgocabl
 e.ca>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 93 DOT 970507094612 DOT 23273B-100000 AT xs1 DOT xs4all DOT nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

At 10:31 1997/05/07 -0400, Pierre Phaneuf wrote:
>How do you do spaces in filenames in Linux? How does bash reacts to this?
>And the fileutils (like ls)? Anyway, quoting a filename is losing IMHO, so
>spaces should be out... ;-)

You can quote spaces with backslashes, like this:

    mv File\ With\ Spaces.txt NewFileWithNoSpaces.txt

Yuk.  Embedding spaces into filenames is gross.  One thing about Win95
that really irked me is that some of the files had embedded spaces.
And Win95's use of double-quotation marks to specify embedded spaces
is worse than the use of backslashes.  IMHO.

On the whole topic of case sensetivity that's been wracking this group,
I don't think there's any burning need to modify FAT.  I think we all
agree that backward compatibility is vital to OpenDOS.  If it can't run
legacy apps, it may as well be a whole new OS.  Therefore, whether we
make some enhancement to FAT or not, the good old FAT will still have
to be around for people to use.

I think IFS (which has already been discussed at length here) will
render many peoples' concerns null; there will certainly be support for
at least the following filesystems:

   * FAT (for backward compatibility)
   * VFAT (for Win95 compatibility)
   * ext2 (for Linux friendliness)
   * Enhanced FAT?  (EFAT?)  (Whatever we choose to do with FAT)

If you want backward compatibility, FAT is there to be used.  If you
want long filenames, VFAT or ext2 is there.  If you want to be Win95-
compatible, use VFAT.  If you insist on cast-sensetivity, use ext2.
We can enhance FAT if we want to, of course, but I don't really see
the need.

Having said that, Tim Bird's mention of an OO FS intrigues me.  That's
an enhancement that may be worth making.  I would love to see this idea
fleshed out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Takashi Toyooka <ttoyooka AT pobox DOT com>                     Verisim, Inc.
http://www.magi.com/~ttoyooka/                 http://www.verisim.com/