[ut2004] No love with linux installer

Sean Hamilton sh at bel.bc.ca
Sat Mar 20 23:13:54 EST 2004

| 8.3 filenames are not necessary with modern filesystems,
| so it's not an unreasonable expectation that you be able
| handle extensions that allow for this.  Is Joliet the
| best extension?  Probably not, but as these discs were
| designed to be read under Windows as well, it's a lot
| easier to use Joliet from the publishers point of view.

I would agree, but Rockridge exists quite happily alongside
Joliet. They merely needed to pass the -r flag to mkisofs,
although I imagine they probably just used a Windows tool
to build the masters. I've nothing against long filenames,
just in this case they appear to be gaining nothing from
using them, and clearly, they are causing their end users

I imagine there have been numerous cases of people hearing
UT is faster in Linux, installing it, having trouble
installing UT2004, and never looking back. Not that I
particularly care which OS Joe End User uses, but if there
are more people using the Linux nvidia driver, it is likely
to see improvement.

Sean Hamilton <sh at bel.bc.ca>

More information about the ut2004 mailing list