stop spamung me asshole
Me Maw
requesting removal of spyware
i would like to request any and all media associated with the following:
Any and all Parties who contributed to, participated it, and or redistributed
the following in question;
any and all media , including but not limited to:
recordings ; audio and or video, text messages, phone calls, picture
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 08:32:33AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 01 Jan 2017 at 13:15:11 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 05:14:50PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
Yeah, sorry. I was set off by this...
> > > Auto-selecti
This appears to be a never ending thread. ;-)
I started it, an, for the record, I'm good (I've got a satisfactory answer--it
seems I can put photos in subdirectories and the photo frame will work its way
through the subdirectories).
But, if you (all) are having fun, carry on ;-)
On Monday,
Le tridi 13 nivôse, an CCXXV, Jude DaShiell a écrit :
> msdos 6.22 which was fat16 had a limit of 112 files in top level directory.
> Once I tried putting more than that on a floppy disk and couldn't figure why
> no more would fit until I found this out. I don't know if the limit got
> expanded fo
vid Wright
Reply-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:37:55 + (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
On Sun 01 Jan 2017 at 13:15:11 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrot
On Sun 01 Jan 2017 at 13:15:11 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 05:14:50PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > On Sat 31 Dec 2016 at 10:35:02 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Calculemus, as Leibnitz said. A bit of experimental informatics:
>
> Mpfh. Seems I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 05:14:50PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Sat 31 Dec 2016 at 10:35:02 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[...]
> > Calculemus, as Leibnitz said. A bit of experimental informatics:
Mpfh. Seems I was a bit boisterous here :)
[.
to...@tuxteam.de schreef op 31-12-2016 10:35:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Xen wrote:
do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41:
>I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, but
>never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one of their "Features". The
>said "Feat
On Sat 31 Dec 2016 at 10:35:02 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Xen wrote:
> > do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41:
> >
> > >I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, but
> > >never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one of
On Saturday 31 December 2016 09:16:10 Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 12/31/2016 7:49 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 31 December 2016 08:01:15 Nicolas George wrote:
> >> Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> >>> From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this
Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> > Think a little more about it: it is a limitation of the format, not
> > the operating system. If an operating system extends the format, it is
> > no longer compatible with the rest of the world, and then there is no
> > reason to use FAT a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 02:01:15PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> > From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is
> > correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the now
On 12/31/2016 7:49 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Saturday 31 December 2016 08:01:15 Nicolas George wrote:
Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is
correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the now several
non-
On Saturday 31 December 2016 08:01:15 Nicolas George wrote:
> Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> > From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is
> > correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the now several
> > non-M$ versions of dos. I saw an annou
Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is
> correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the now several non-M$
> versions of dos. I saw an announcement of yet another dos release just a
> couple weeks back. I a
On Saturday 31 December 2016 04:35:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Xen wrote:
> > do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41:
> > >I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir,
> > > but never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one of their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Xen wrote:
> do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41:
>
> >I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, but
> >never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one of their "Features". The
> >sa
do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41:
I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, but
never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one of their "Features". The
said "Feature" still was there when using ntfs in XP if I remember
correctly.
Perhaps it's just because Windows
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 13:46:25 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> > As I recall that there is (or used to be?) a limit on the number of
> > files in the
> > top level directory of a FAT32 (or 16?) partition / drive. If you
> > needed to
> > have more files in a directory, you had to create a subdirectory
On Thursday, December 08, 2016 12:49:42 PM Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2016, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
...
> Ugh. Well, for FAT32, "it depends" on the implementation, but it is not
> unlimited.
>
> Even for FAT12/16, the number of entries in the root directory region
> co
On Thu, 08 Dec 2016, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> Does anybody else (reading this) recall that, and recall more details, like
> the maximum number of files and which FAT systems (32 or 16) this applied to,
> and, further, is it still a limit on FAT32?
Ugh. Well, for FAT32, "it depends" on the imp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 07:42:33 -0500
rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
>I've been googling to try to answer this question, so far, no luck.
>
>I recall that there is (or used to be?) a limit on the number of files in the
>top level directory of a FAT32 (or 16
L'octidi 18 frimaire, an CCXXV, rhkra...@gmail.com a écrit :
> I recall that there is (or used to be?) a limit on the number of files in the
> top level directory of a FAT32 (or 16?) partition / drive. If you needed to
> have more files in a directory, you had to create a subdirectory (and, as I
25 matches
Mail list logo
