Peter Conrad <address@hidden> writes:
You have to balance cost against usefulness. If 8.3 filenames
were the limit on today's windows, the usefulness of sticking
to the limit would probably outweigh the cost.
I'd like to point out that this is clearly a political argument --- I
can't believe that you'd honestly defend such a technical flaw.
Basically, you seem to imply that Windows support is important nowadays
because Microsoft has (almost) a monopoly; you then deduce that free
software projects should thus abide by the technical rules set by
Microsoft, no matter how bit-rotten they are, no matter what
alternatives exist, etc.
I personally do not support such arguments.