undefined | Better HN

0 pointslondons_explore3y ago0 comments

I can imagine that if bigfat is successful, such files will start to exist.

Imagine someone takes a bigfat drive and puts it in a non-bigfat capable machine, then zips up a directory and publishes it.

When that directory is unzipped on a bigfat machine, should the bigfat files be re-joined, or should they show as separate files? One breaks the OS file API and the unzip program might crash/fail, while the other leads to the application trying to create filenames which can't exist in the filesystem.

0 comments

jonny_eh3y ago

> should the bigfat files be re-joined, or should they show as separate files

They're only "rejoined" by the BigFAT compatible filesystem driver on access. By running such a driver, you're agreeing that such files should "appear" as one.

mort963y ago

Hey, notice that you're suggesting that BigFAT should be disabled by default here; you think the user should have to choose to be running a driver with BigFAT-support. Maybe reflect on whether that's a desirable situation, or if it would've been preferable if the feature could've been enabled by default.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse