Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 08:47:36PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > filesystems. For example, should we limit all FreeBSD file names to 8.3
> > > single-case in case someone wants to run from an old-style MSDOS
> > > partition?
> >
> > Bad example. Not _all_ filenames but temp. ones only which allows to run
> > FreeBSD binary in MSDOS FS with MSDOS files.
>
> The point is the same. Files created by FreeBSD binaries during the course
> of operation don't conform to an 8.3 monocase naming scheme (think of
> dotfiles for example). I don't believe there's such a thing as a lowest
> common denominator of file system naming conventions - either a filesystem
> can support UFS names (perhaps through a translation later) or it's not
> suitable for running FreeBSD from.
There really is no reason to use 72 characters instead of -say- 64. The
increase in security is marginal and if the side-effect of using 64 is
that it works with more filesystems than that is a Good Thing (TM). We
are not alone in this world as -say- Microsoft tends to think.
It's probably better to just get rid of the PID and use randomness
troughout the name than to use 72 characters. 64^6 vs. 2*(72^3) .
Cheers,
Jeroen
--
Jeroen C. van Gelderen o _ _ _
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _o /\_ _ \\o (_)\__/o (_)
_< \_ _>(_) (_)/<_ \_| \ _|/' \/
(_)>(_) (_) (_) (_) (_)' _\o_
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
