On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:56:05PM +0200, Markus Mauhart wrote:
> or more beyond EOF") now seems to be a good way to emulate *modern*
> unix FS capabilities, which are different from "unix sparse files",
What is the meaning of that argument? What is different? Evidence,
not claim, please.
> So probably you are right, when the next cygwin does what you say
> ("64K"), further discussion about old wrong arguments supporting
> old wrong features are really good for nothing.
> But nevertheless send me an email in case you find out more about
> since when typical unix/linux FSs support holes inside files !
Sorry but I don't care for that. It's in ext2/ext3 and it's in xfs
and several other FS. Nobody actually cares on a UNIX system since
that fact is hidden and transparent to applications. It's "just there".
It wouldn't be a point of discussion in this mailing list if Microsoft
wouldn't have taken the non-transparent route when implementing this
feature in NTFS.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
