[lug] umsdos linux

[Mike Vigorita]

If I remember my umsdos correctly, umsdos "fakes" a linux fs.  The one big
problem is that the DOS FS does not understand long filenames (at least, it
didn't before Win95), and it doesn't understand the different types of
permissions.

Umsdos creates a "--linux--.---" file in all it's directories.  This is
where it stores the full filenames, and the permissions on the various
files.  Theoretically (I've never tried this), you can copy files into the
DOS linux directory structure; then in your "linux" window (whatever), if
you run 'umssync' it will update the ---linux---.--- file with the new
filename you put into the dir.  This should fix your problem of copying
files in, and not seeing them until you re-boot.  On startup, Linux
automatically runs 'umssync' to update all the ---linux---.--- files.

As for it being slow, yup.  DOS is a slow FS, compared to NTFS and Linux
native...

As far as mangling is concerned, I'm not sure what you mean.  It destroys
the file content?  Could this be some kind of ASCII-like conversion going on
(or not going on)?

Lastly, yes, Windows will show you the linux filenames in the "~" format.
And, Linux will show you the Windows filenames in the "~" format.  If I
remember correctly, if you load the vfat32 driver, with umsdos, you will see
the full filenames of your Winblows files...

Viggy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-admin at lug.boulder.co.us [mailto:lug-admin at lug.boulder.co.us]On
> Behalf Of llornkcor at llornkcor.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 8:25 AM
> To: lug at lists.lug.boulder.co.us
> Subject: [lug] umsdos linux
>
>
> I was bored yesterday at work, and installed on of those linux
> that runs on windows things- dragonlinux
> to be precise., and was wondering if anybody else has tried one
> of these things out, and if so,
> what they thought of it?
>
> Personally, I think, hmm, first off, its got really slow fs
> access, but not as slow as vmware. I don't know
> if its just dragonlinux, UMSDOS, or what, but it 'syncs' files up
> , and if I have put them in the
>  /linux (er, c:\linux, that is) directory under windows, and
> mangles them in the process. AND
> windows mangles any .rpm, and .deb packages, but .tar.gz seem to
> be ok.  If I copy a file from DOS, the
> fs doesn't even show it, until I reboot. It's really weird, I
> think. It might be a good  way for scared
> people to 'check out' linux, but, then again, its not really
> linux. Another curious thing, the rest of the
> windows HDD, is in a dir called DOS, and, has  micros~1 type of
> short filenames( which isn't really that
> strange, because the REAL OS [DOS] is in control) I hope anybody
> seriously using these realize its
> just bizarre.
>    Make me appreciate linux all the more.
>
>
> LP
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
>
>