| 1 |
Jesús J. Guerrero Botella posted on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:19:57 +0200 as |
| 2 |
excerpted: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> someone said fat32 compatibility is a feature we want (still can't guess |
| 5 |
> why, but well, be consequent...). |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I believe that "someone" that mentioned fat32 compatibility in the |
| 8 |
context of symlinks was me. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
But "we want" is rather strong for what I intended. More, "it's a factor |
| 11 |
to keep in mind", and "if we decide we do NOT want to keep fat32 |
| 12 |
compatibility, we should be sure the feature we're implementing that |
| 13 |
breaks it is worth the tradeoff." |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Maybe it is worth the tradeoff. Maybe it isn't. But either way, we |
| 16 |
shouldn't break that compatibility accidentally, simply because we didn't |
| 17 |
think of it as a factor. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 21 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 22 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives