Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Support For Microsoft's exFAT File-System

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux Support For Microsoft's exFAT File-System

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

    Introduced in Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and then last week as a Windows XP update was exFAT. exFAT, or the Extended File Allocation Table, is Microsoft's new file-system for use on mobile devices like large USB flash drives...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzAzMg

  • #2
    exFAT is a real example of "business as usual" in redmond.

    A new filesystem to be used in flash drives and memory cards, done entirely without considering other systems -- what about trying to arrive at a middle term, decent filesystem that can support features from windows, unix and others, like for example support for saving unix permissions; microsoft says: HA HA! -- undocumented, so that others will stay in the dark, and seems that will be unsupported on most old microsoft OS's, so better not take that pendrive to granny...

    Of course the minute microsoft makes crap like this, manufacturers and people start using it, and other systems are left out. Microsoft gets the power to push crap like this on the world via their windows monopoly!

    Oh and some years from now microsoft might get a slap on the wrist from us or eu authorities, after the "transition" is complete...

    Comment


    • #3
      Nothing new in that. For years now all factory-formatted usb drives have had messed up partition tables, that often will not mount under older kernels. Because M$ Windows "does not support usb partitions", yet when one manually creates a proper partition table the first partition is mounted just fine in windows.

      Comment


      • #4
        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/

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by KDesk View Post
          The same as usual, the companies should stay with Fat32 and not accept this crap of FS.
          They should be using UDF, in my opinion. Every current OS supports it already.

          Comment


          • #6
            the more Linux gets into the market, the more Microsoft does this type of shit. We're gonna see worse things from them in the near future.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                That's a good point.
                Also, Microsoft has all the rights to create a file system. However, there are no good reasons to make it proprietary. Actually, the only reason is to lock users to Windows. In a way or in another, at least 70% of linux users also have Windows installed and even MacOS people start to have windows on their machines. In other words, Windows is everywhere and this is what M$ wants. And they have the power to do it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Granted, if you don't have to deal with exFAT formatted media, you can use another file-system like EXT4, Tux3, or Btrfs for your high-capacity removable media.
                  Way to go, Michael, recommending two unstable and still-experimental file systems for storing data

                  I don't see other file systems bending over backwards to accommodate other OS's as well.
                  Well, all the Linux filesystems are out in the open, so is ZFS. While not all of these filesystems may make an effort to be interoperable, they don't actively hinder it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by piquadrat View Post
                    Well, all the Linux filesystems are out in the open, so is ZFS. While not all of these filesystems may make an effort to be interoperable, they don't actively hinder it.

                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X