Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

DOS Filenames | NTLFN crap (Users)

posted by w3a537 E-mail, Colorado Springs CO USA, 28.07.2010, 06:29

> > I am newly registered on this forum.
>
> Welcome :-)
>
> > I want to add my comments about DOS filenames.
> > When the intention is to use a file or distriubition of files,
> > ie. a ZIP FILE, in a RAW DOS environment, all files should obey the
> > DOS 8.3 naming specification especially when they are being distributed.
>
> Right. Anyone cares except me ???
>

Probably someone who is having a problem might care.

>
> > Please, no long filenames. This may cause another persion a big
> headache.
>
> This shows that "DOS" stuff was not compiled on DOS and most likely not
> tested either, and might not work well or at all.
>

IS TRUE.

>
> > My personal preference is no "dot" extension in directory names.
>
> Right. :-) Then you might appreciate new new spec prohibiting extensions
> for directories :-)
>
> > Please observe it's directory depth limitation of "8". Even on a simple
> FAT32
>
> FAT28
>
> > Some unzippers might not work if > 8 and inside a RAW DOS environment.
>
> Directory depth + path length limit is an "interesting problem"
> occasionally causing "interesting trouble" (reportedly NOT fixed on
> Wista :clap: ). There is a long rationale about it in my new (unfinished)
> spec.
>
> > I had to format a whole USB stick once because I was unable to delete a
> > directory structure with a DEPTH OF 11.
>
> WtF ??? Maybe reducing the name length would help.
>

But, the person creating the archive would have to do this.
This is what I'm saying.

>
> Rugxulo wrote:
>
> > BTW, you don't have to stick to 8.3 if your compressor can handle LFNs.
>

This says, only people with compatible zippers/unzippers can work together.

> Funny :confused: Why the bloat ??? Why not brew DOS package on DOS ???
Again, the person creating the archive would have to do this.
This is what I'm saying.

>
> > Most unpackers should unpack them to 8.3.
>
> Bad hack.
>
> > It's just more important to keep the first 8.3 distinct to avoid clashes.
>
>
> [image]
>
> Result: extracted 1'319 from 1'514 files, 195 lost :-(
>
> bretjohn wrote:
>
> > I see Rugxulo's comment below about some DOS programs not
> > working with 8.3 directory names, but those are buggy programs
>
> NOT if you document your deprecation of directory extensions ;-)
>
> > not a limitation of DOS.
> > All DOS programs are _supposed_ to be able to
> > understand 8.3 directory names.
>
> Design fault.
Steve ...

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22762 Postings in 2122 Threads, 402 registered users (1 online)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum