In some mail I received from Christos Zoulas, sie wrote
> 
> In article <19970324214916.YH08116@uriah.heep.sax.de> joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) writes:
> >Better name it `dosdump'?  Remember, there's more DOSes than just M$.
> >Also, we do already have a mkdosfs(8), maybe somebody would even write
> >a dosfsck(8).  (mkdosfs doesn't understand harddisks however.  I'm not
> >the right person to ask for this, my DOS knowledge is too weak.)
> >
> >Ideally, all this should probably named s/dos/fat/g.  It's a more
> >descriptive name of this filesystem.
> 
> We do have fsck_msdos, and we are using your mkdosfs as newfs_msdos...
> The dump should become dump_msdos...
> It would be nice if we shared the same naming conventions.

hmmm...

dumplfs, newlfs, dump, newfs...

...newlfs doesn't really fit in but the convention of using prog_fstype
seems to have merit (if dumplfs & newlfs are renamed too).

but, with VFAT, FAT12, FAT16 and now maybe FAT32, is "_msdos" descriptive
enough ?

Darren