Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: An Open-Source exFAT Implementation Reaches v1.0

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Distribution is distribution is distribution. It makes no difference if you pre-install it, supply physical media, or have people download it from the interwebz. Its still in violation of copyright/patent/etc.
    But if you get people do download the required binary (that was compiled by somebody else), then you aren't distributing.
    Last edited by archibald; 01-21-2013 at 06:21 PM. Reason: added parentheses and the verb 'compiled'

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Hum, gee, I wonder why nobody's ever thought of that before??? Truly so easy to circumvent all patent issues, all you need to do is build a simple system capable of downloading and installing something from the interwebz rather than shipping it pre-installed, then you can trade around all kinds of stuff, like wondoze, osx, free movies, free music, and free pr0n.

    Duh... sorry, my friend, that's not how it works.
    Distribution is distribution is distribution. It makes no difference if you pre-install it, supply physical media, or have people download it from the interwebz. Its still in violation of copyright/patent/etc.
    If the software is developed and distributed from servers outside of United Corporations of America, MS can't do s** about it. That's why Archlinux can ship software with mp3 decoders compiled in as it's a Canadian distro.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    457

    Default

    The SD card standard organization should have done a mechanism of indicating a file system, describing what file system is on the card instead of having this nonsense.

    This way we can have both:
    - for older systems you can use older file systems with less code change
    - for newer systems you can use newer file systems with better features, better adapted for the use case.
    - makes the standard simpler and easier to implement for hardware makers
    Last edited by plonoma; 01-22-2013 at 10:24 AM. Reason: better wording

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by plonoma View Post
    The SD card standard organization should have done a mechanism of indicating a file system, describing what file system is on the card instead of having this nonsense.

    This way we can have both:
    - for older systems you can use older file systems with less code change
    - for newer systems you can use newer file systems with better features, better adapted for the use case.
    - makes the standard simpler and easier to implement for hardware makers
    The filesystem makes zero difference, because you can always reformat it to whatever you like. It's just there for people who don't know how to do that, and the same people are not likely to care about what filesystem it is in the first place.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chithanh View Post
    What it doesn't have is being allowed to install inside a partition. UDF spec requires that the filesystem occupies the entire storage medium. But in practice, the operating systems ignore this restriction.
    Hello.
    External media in all Windows versions is disallowed to be partitioned.
    There seems to be some kind of a flag for the USB driver, which switches between "harddisk" and "usbdisk" modes.

    Under Linux there is no such exception, but any usb drive with partitions will *not* be recognized by Windows.

    Steps to reproduce:
    1) Attach any USB disk to Windows and open Disk Management
    2) Note, that you can't create partitions, regardless which FS.

    1) Attach any USB disk to Linux and create at least one unformatted partition without filesystem.
    2) Attach this USB disk to Windows and note that the drive will not be recognized.
    3) If you delete the partitions, Windows will recognize the drive again and follow restriction 2 above.

    Personally, I find the global adaption of JFFS2 would be more than adequate.
    Last edited by brosis; 01-22-2013 at 01:34 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,033

    Default

    Windoze does recognize the first partition. I have a lot of sticks with fat32 as the first partition and ext* as the subsequent ones.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Arctic circle, Finland
    Posts
    282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Windoze does recognize the first partition. I have a lot of sticks with fat32 as the first partition and ext* as the subsequent ones.
    Heh this is not always the case, my usb hardrive are not recognized in windows with 2 partitions in it. First one being fat and other being ext3. I have to use ext2ifs software for mounting my fat partition to windows. Maybe it has something to with fact that I have partitioned it under linux.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [Knuckles] View Post
    Even NTFS is better than exfat.
    Support on all windows systems for the past 12 (?) years or more without patches that may or not be installed, read-only part of the linux kernel (and others), every decent distro ships ntfs-3g for full rw support, OSX can read it too, write support is in there somewhere but disabled by default, and it can also use ntfs-3g.

    So really, why bother with exfat, if you can avoid it. Microsoft had a real chance to promote interoperability, and they decided against it. Again.
    I see that you have no idea how hard is to keep the OS X driver working

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redi44 View Post
    I see that you have no idea how hard is to keep the OS X driver working
    This exFAT driver is just like NTFS-3g based on FUSE which means that this driver is no simpler to use under OSX than NTFS-3g.
    UDF on the other hand works almost everywhere out of the box.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by plonoma View Post
    The SD card standard organization should have done a mechanism of indicating a file system, describing what file system is on the card instead of having this nonsense.

    This way we can have both:
    - for older systems you can use older file systems with less code change
    - for newer systems you can use newer file systems with better features, better adapted for the use case.
    - makes the standard simpler and easier to implement for hardware makers
    I don't understand how this helps the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of devices currently in use.

    I don't understand how adding cost and complexity to both the drive and the socket "makes the standard simpler and easier to implement". The modifications of which you speak would require an extra signal, which would entail another pin in the socket, another landing on the drive.

    You seem to be forgetting that MOST of the SD sockets out there are mounted in VERY VERY DUMB EMBEDDED SYSTEMS. They are cameras and MP3 players and the like. They are NOT general purpose computers, they do NOT have endless RAM for more and more code and more and more file systems. These systems are TOTALLY MINIMAL and there is simply no room or development time or inclination or whatever to make changes like this that have very very little upside and lots and lots of downside.

    And besides all that, WHO THE FUCK says you HAVE to put ONE SINGLE PARTITION on the drive??? SD cards are just plain generic block devices, you can partition them and put as many different file systems on them as you want. Heck you can just open the raw block device and treat it as one big file if it flips your switch.

Posting Permissions

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