Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Linux Support For Microsoft's exFAT File-System

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Booo Hooo, I don't see other file systems bending over backwards to accommodate other OS's as well. So MS makes another FS, so what. I don't see the opensource community making their file systems easily accessible on windows, os x, insert alternative OS name here. If you run 64-bit windows the only option you have is a slow ext driver, Perhaps if the foss community would put some effort into making their FS easily accessible in windows you wouldn't have to worry about stuff like this. I only can dream so far of being to easily r/w to filesystems like btrfs, xfs, etc in windows.
    I'm not asking for microsoft to develop drivers for linux and other OS's, but they should provide the specs needed to interoperate with windows, and it's filesystems.

    Also, if people want btrfs, xfs, etc on windows, the difference is that they only have to reimplement the filesystem, they don't have to REVERSE ENGINEER it.

    Also, exFAT is being explicitly positioned as filesystem for portable media, and for replacing fat for interoperating between different devices and os's, so hell yeah they could have opened the process a bit to some suggestions. Do you mean to tell me that it's completely unreasonable to suggest that?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [Knuckles] View Post
    I'm not asking for microsoft to develop drivers for linux and other OS's, but they should provide the specs needed to interoperate with windows, and it's filesystems.

    Also, if people want btrfs, xfs, etc on windows, the difference is that they only have to reimplement the filesystem, they don't have to REVERSE ENGINEER it.

    Also, exFAT is being explicitly positioned as filesystem for portable media, and for replacing fat for interoperating between different devices and os's, so hell yeah they could have opened the process a bit to some suggestions. Do you mean to tell me that it's completely unreasonable to suggest that?
    No, I'm saying instead of bitching what people can't change, do what they can do and that is come up with a viable alternative supported on all platforms and stop worrying about what some corp is doing on their product. When it comes to things like filesystems there should be less politics, create a solution that works for everybody instead of trying to move a brickwall expecting it to bend to a minorities needs or wants. They should stop with the "we are better because XYZ OS has ABC filesystem" and come up with something to aid everybody no matter of their OS of choice.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Booo Hooo, I don't see other file systems bending over backwards to accommodate other OS's as well. So MS makes another FS, so what. I don't see the opensource community making their file systems easily accessible on windows, os x, insert alternative OS name here. If you run 64-bit windows the only option you have is a slow ext driver, Perhaps if the foss community would put some effort into making their FS easily accessible in windows you wouldn't have to worry about stuff like this. I only can dream so far of being to easily r/w to filesystems like btrfs, xfs, etc in windows.
    Add to what [Knuckles] said, I don't see why it's the FOSS community's job to 'make their FS easily accessible in Windows'. It's already much easier to develop drivers for it since it's open and open source, so why is it their job to develop for a platform they don't (necessarily) use? It should be Microsoft's job to do that, or the job of a person using Windows. It's as if Microsoft developed the ntfs-3g driver itself.

    In other words, why does Linux always have to support other stuff, while where other OSs (read: Microsoft) need support for FOSS projects, the FOSS community gets blamed?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by susikala View Post
    A
    In other words, why does Linux always have to support other stuff, while where other OSs (read: Microsoft) need support for FOSS projects, the FOSS community gets blamed?
    Because they are the ones bitching.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDesk View Post
    The same as usual, the companies should stay with Fat32 and not accept this crap of FS.

    Also, exFat didn't have advantages compared to NFTS or Fat32.
    http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/infor...ntfs-vs-exfat/
    The problem with Fat32 is that files can't be larger than 4 GB, which is a serious restriction when you're, say, a consumer electronics company developing an HD camcorder that uses flash cards for storage. File systems like NTFS, EXT, XFS, etc. have too much overhead and are way too hefty to be practical (why would a camcorder need file permissions, journaling, or any other advanced feature?). They wouldn't add anything of value but would require larger, more expensive and power-hungry chips, the firmware would be more complex, and you'd have to hire new firmware engineers who know the new file system.

    This might explain why the SD Association didn't go with something like UDF: exFAT seems to just be an extension of FAT32, so it probably doesn't take much work to modify existing products to use it.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    No, I'm saying instead of bitching what people can't change, do what they can do and that is come up with a viable alternative supported on all platforms and stop worrying about what some corp is doing on their product. When it comes to things like filesystems there should be less politics
    The Linux/BSD-community already came up with plenty of alternatives, e.g. the very lightweight ext2. But, and here is why politics matter, no file system will ever have a chance to become the successor of FAT32 as the interoperable file system without Microsoft's blessing. They still hold an overwhelming percentage of the market.

    In other words: what they distribute with Windows becomes a defacto standard, especially with something like a file system. Most Windows users have no idea what a file system is or that their computer has got something like that. They won't go to fs-driver.org to download an ext2 driver.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    /dev/random
    Posts
    218

    Default

    There's already JFFS2 and YAFFS, but of course, M$ is always right...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Booo Hooo, I don't see other file systems bending over backwards to accommodate other OS's as well. So MS makes another FS, so what. I don't see the opensource community making their file systems easily accessible on windows, os x, insert alternative OS name here. If you run 64-bit windows the only option you have is a slow ext driver, Perhaps if the foss community would put some effort into making their FS easily accessible in windows you wouldn't have to worry about stuff like this. I only can dream so far of being to easily r/w to filesystems like btrfs, xfs, etc in windows.
    The problem is not about source code as much as specifications. NTFS, EXT2, EXT3, exFAT are all crap. FAT is the only popular file-system to have a public specification. So any OS-writer can add FAT-support to his/her OS by reading those specs. Ext2/3 are not so open. I guess that's because people are so happy to equate open source to open specs.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by piquadrat View Post
    The Linux/BSD-community already came up with plenty of alternatives, e.g. the very lightweight ext2.
    No they didn't they came up with a solution for their OS. A real cross platform filesystem that was designed with maximum compatibility is like UDF or ISO 9660.

    But, and here is why politics matter, no file system will ever have a chance to become the successor of FAT32 as the interoperable file system without Microsoft's blessing. They still hold an overwhelming percentage of the market.
    Again this is simply not true as it has been demonstrated with UDF ans ISO-9660. These specs were not designed by MS but yet all OS's adopted them including MS.

    In other words: what they distribute with Windows becomes a defacto standard, especially with something like a file system.
    Again this isn't necessarily the case there have been many cases where even though the industry may support some of MS's proprietary formats they do use others as the industry standard. Take a look at the codecs, MS has been pushing WMV / ASF for years but those are not considered the standard.

    Most Windows users have no idea what a file system is or that their computer has got something like that. They won't go to fs-driver.org to download an ext2 driver.
    Sure they will, if a device needs supporting software that is exactly what they do now. People download drivers, codecs, etc all the time.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Hindered or not, if the FS does not have a port to other OS's it's just as useless outside of it's native OS.
    How many "other OS's" are there? I'm writing a micro-kernel myself. Can I ask FS-code writers to write a port of the FS for my OS? You can NEVER port something to an infinite number of OSes. All you can do (and should do) is to fight for open specifications, not open source. Anything that is (Windows + Linux)-specific or (Windows + Linux + Mac)-specific is just as bad as being Windows-specific or Linux-specific. The only FSs that deserve to be called as "open filesystems" are those that have open specifications.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •