Re: VFAT kernel considerations

[Jo Even Skarstein <joska@nuts.edu>]

On Tue, 19 May 1998, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:

> Actually, on IRCnet #atari, we often have people who complain
> that MagiC just trashed their whole drive, since they enabled
> the VFAT extension on their boot partition, so...

That MagiC trash drives is nothing new, and has very little to do with
VFAT itself. Blame it on poor implementation and a extremely unstable
kernel.

The only problem I can think of with a properly implemented VFAT, is
that it *might* create some problems with programs in the autofolder
(because VFAT might change their 8+3 name into something they don't
recognise). This is easily solved by renaming the files again, or run
something like Diamond Edge to remove the illegal FAT-entries.
To actually *destroy* the FAT is virtually impossible with a properly
implemented VFAT.

The point is that while VFAT on the boot-drive perhaps isn't the
smartest thing you can do, it's certainly not disastrous. Clear and
concise docs should be sufficient.

> And in many case, the data loss is a dramatic event enough that
> some people decide their Atari just isn't worth investing into,
> "cause MagiC sucks and MiNT is too difficult", so...

Data loss is inevitable, and if those people believe that switching to
Windows will solve their problems, tough ;-)

Btw. I'm a lot more worried about the wb-cache, which is what has
caused most data-loss under MagiC. Can anybody (Frank? Konrad?)
confirm that "our" implementation is safer than MagiC's?


/*
** Jo Even Skarstein    http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~josk/
**
**    beer - maria mckee - atari falcon - babylon 5
*/