From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Apr 26 13:19:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA06671 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 13:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA06666 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 13:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id NAA07521; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 13:15:17 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199704262015.NAA07521@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: VFAT 32 support in msdosfs To: michaelh@cet.co.jp (Michael Hancock) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 13:15:17 -0700 (MST) Cc: joa@kuebart.stuttgart.netsurf.de, sysop@mixcom.com, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Michael Hancock" at Apr 26, 97 07:46:08 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > By the time you add Unicode and security to Win95 you would have WinNT. Windows 95 already has Unicode. VFAT long names are stored as Unicode strings, and all of COM and 32 bit OLE pass around Unicode parameter strings with their marshallers. The security is problematic, but you *can* implement at least UNIX equivalent security on a Windows 95 system with login profiles, *if* you make a fake net provider and reverse engineer the password provider interface's manifest constants. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.