Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 15:58:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: randir <goehrigd AT gort DOT canisius DOT edu>
To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: BIG suggestion for Opendos Features
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19970507113652.35ef03e2@pop.verisim.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.970507155232.13069A-100000@gort.canisius.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 7 May 1997, Takashi Toyooka wrote:

> 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 that pretty much sums up the basic and extended arguement
	for not overwhelming people with choices at least initially.
	After writing a FAT compatible file system for an OS I write as
	a hobby, I simply got really used to the idea of FAT as a functional
	system for small needs.

> We can enhance FAT if we want to, of course, but I don't really see
> the need.

	FAT is PHAT.. :)

	Ofcouse we could just swipe BEOS' database / filesystem
	idea an make a useful file system... nah...