[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IA64 port

From: Robert Millan
Subject: Re: IA64 port
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:48:29 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 05:38:20PM +0100, address@hidden wrote:
> Quoting Robert Millan <address@hidden>:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > > In this case, FAT is modified so fit the need of EFI.  However, FAT is
> > > case insensitive.  On windows C:\FOO.TXT is the same as c:\foo.txt.
> > > Although I have troubles believing people want to use a technically
> > > flawed non-free OS that costs a lot of money.  But that might be
> > > something personally ;-)
> > >
> > > What matters is that it is normal that FAT is not case sensitive.
> > > It's defined that way.  This change can't and won't be made for ext2,
> > > for example.  You can have a ~/foo and ~/FOO side by side.  AFAIK,
> > > this is not possible with FAT.  So I think this patch is ok :-)
> >
> > I may lack some perspective on how FAT works internally, so please bear with
> > me, but as far as I can see:
> >
> >   - FAT is not really case insensitive any more than its path names are
> >     8.3-limited.  It originally was, but latest revisions don't enforce
> >     these limitations.
> FAT is now case preserving but still case insensitive.  Like MacOS filesystem.

AFAIK, there's no standard specifiing FAT, only a few implementations that act
de-facto as a "reference".  Because of this, it is up to us to decide what is
"standard" and what is just an OS-dependant oddity.

Since the choice is arbitrary, why not choose based on the merits of each
option, rather than based on what some implementations do?

Robert Millan

<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]