Re: [LUG] External hard drives

[tom <tompotts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20/12/10 15:28, Grant Sewell wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:15:10 +0000
> tom wrote:
>
> > On 20/12/10 12:22, Gordon Henderson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, tom wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 20/12/10 11:50, Gordon Henderson wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Grant Sewell wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So how is it that I can create a FAT32 filesystem without hassle
> > > > > > under most Linux systems?  In order to play MP3s or watch DVDs I
> > > > > > have to jump
> > > > > > through hoops, but I seem to be able to create Microsoft-owned
> > > > > > filesystems without having to jump through any hoops or pay
> > > > > > anybody any
> > > > > > money.
> > > > > AIUI - FATxxx is so "open" and widely adopted that it's patents
> > > > > aren't that enforcable, but what MS does keep a tight grip on is
> > > > > the extended filename mechanism that's an extension to FAT.. So
> > > > > if you're happy with uppercase 8+3 filenames, then feel free, but
> > > > > if you want nice mixed case long filenames then pay MS...
> > > > >
> > > > > Of-course IANAL ...
> > > > Google for Tom Tom Fat and save on heating with the boiling blood
> > > > of righteous indignation this winter.
> > > I remember it well - and my understanding is that it was the
> > > long-filename extensions that they were penalised for..
> > >
> > > But maybe I need to read it again.
> > >
> > > Gordon
> > And do you know of anyone that would be happy with 8+3 on a USB - the
> > irony being that Tom Tom could probably have modified their
> > requirements so the Tom Tom would work with 8+3 and avoided any
> > requirement to pay MS. But they obviously worked out it was cheaper
> > to pay MS than expect their programmers to be able to remember/cope
> > with it/somehow backdate all those ones already sold with fat32 on
> > out there. Could you cope with using a FAT disk to write to?
> > Tom te tom te tom
> Is it possible to get mkfs.vfat to create a FAT32 filesystem but
> without the long filename support?  I couldn't find the relevant
> options in the man page.  Or is "long filename support" an inherent
> attribute of FAT32 (whereas it wasn't for earlier FATs)?
>
> Grant.
It probably is - the long file name support was just hidden file with 
the alternate names. Assuming you can get an unformatted drive in the 
first place...
Tom te tom te tom

--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq