Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

From	<tomas@tuxteam.de>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level
Date	2016-12-31 16:30 +0100
Message-ID	<sUtLA-4Gy-21@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<sTt1g-4Xg-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sTCxz-32V-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sUoiS-18f-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <sUrqp-32Y-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <sUrA5-3lu-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 02:01:15PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> > From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is 
> > correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the now several non-M$ 
> > versions of dos. I saw an announcement of yet another dos release just a 
> > couple weeks back. I assume its getting better
> 
> Think a little more about it: it is a limitation of the format, not the
> operating system. If an operating system extends the format, it is no
> longer compatible with the rest of the world, and then there is no
> reason to use FAT at all.

Yes, my hunch was also that it is a limit of the on-disk format (which
is, as you say, set in stone), although I expressed it in a pretty
round-about way, it seems :)

thanks
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlhnzbsACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaerACfWhl4J5oA1wPdA0DTi7cPM4dP
0TUAnROtKgKs9IG5rHWgD6dAk62+wCiF
=5k1I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thread

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 07:40 +0100
  Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-12-31 10:40 +0100
    Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-12-31 14:00 +0100
      Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-12-31 14:10 +0100
        Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-12-31 15:00 +0100
          Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-12-31 15:20 +0100
            Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-12-31 16:40 +0100
          Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-12-31 16:40 +0100
        Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-12-31 16:30 +0100
    Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-01 00:30 +0100
      Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-01-01 13:20 +0100
        Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 15:40 +0100
          Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2017-01-02 16:30 +0100
            Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-02 16:30 +0100
              Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 17:40 +0100
          Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-01-02 20:50 +0100
    Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 12:50 +0100

csiph-web