Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 74

Thread: Native Linux Kernel Module Is Out For Microsoft exFAT

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,646

    Default Native Linux Kernel Module Is Out For Microsoft exFAT

    Phoronix: Native Linux Kernel Module Is Out For Microsoft exFAT

    A Linux developer has released a native Linux kernel module for implementing Microsoft exFAT file-system support within the Linux kernel. This is different than earlier exFAT Linux modules that were implemented via FUSE in user-space...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM5NTQ

  2. #2

    Default

    This module right now will work on the Linux 3.8.11 kernel but the module's author says right now there are issues if using the Linux 3.9 kernel or newer.
    I.e. distros won't use it due to legal issues, enthusiasts won't use it because it's not compatible with mainline.

    I.e. there's a great chance this module will soon be forgotten and forsaken.

    Besides who will verify its source code? What if this module inadvertently messes with the kernel memory layout and allows exploits?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    I.e. distros won't use it due to legal issues, enthusiasts won't use it because it's not compatible with mainline.

    I.e. there's a great chance this module will soon be forgotten and forsaken.

    Besides who will verify its source code? What if this module inadvertently messes with the kernel memory layout and allows exploits?
    LEARN TO FIX PROBLEMS, ALL YOU DO THROUGH YOUR LIFE IS COMPLAINING LIKE A GIRL.

    (sorry for caps to everyone)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    LEARN TO FIX PROBLEMS, ALL YOU DO THROUGH YOUR LIFE IS COMPLAINING LIKE A GIRL.

    (sorry for caps to everyone)
    He does have a point, Brosis. The only distros that will pick this up are the ones without a legal entity behind them that CAN be sued, and the ones that are based out side of the US that CANT be sued for patent infringement on software.

    And until this module is properly fixed for current-mainline and STAYS fixed, even enthusiasts won't pick it up.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,086

    Default

    I can think of a few entities who may find this useful; those entities who currently license exfat for linux (android) cell phones and similar, and yes, MS does have their own module. This probably would provide a slightly greater flexibility for those entities than the MS blob would.

    Edit: Also, the git log appears to be somewhat suspicious;
    https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/commits/master
    -- was this entire thing written all today over the last several hours?
    Last edited by droidhacker; 06-25-2013 at 03:46 PM.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    I can think of a few entities who may find this useful; those entities who currently license exfat for linux (android) cell phones and similar, and yes, MS does have their own module. This probably would provide a slightly greater flexibility for those entities than the MS blob would.

    Edit: Also, the git log appears to be somewhat suspicious;
    https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/commits/master
    -- was this entire thing written all today over the last several hours?
    If you'd thought for a second you could have realized that the author could create the code on his own PC and then he simply uploaded the final version to GitHub. ;-)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    He does have a point, Brosis. The only distros that will pick this up are the ones without a legal entity behind them that CAN be sued, and the ones that are based out side of the US that CANT be sued for patent infringement on software.

    And until this module is properly fixed for current-mainline and STAYS fixed, even enthusiasts won't pick it up.
    Thats completely correct, but its just the same thing as with ntfs. It illegal to use without royalty fee, but thanks to microsoft monopoly (and with exFat - for using their monopoly to push proprietary file system as a standard) people should really give a damn! Proprietary protocols should never ever be elevated into standards.

    Although I completely agree on non-inclusion, because we don't want microsoft tax. A big fat warning for those who look up and another criticism section in already huge article "Criticism of Microsoft" would also be nice. But I applaud to the efforts of this project, because it destroys barriers that MS is so fond of building up; and I will applaud every single bug fixed, because it will destroy birdie aka "Check my Linux sucks list"-guy ego badly.

    Ofc. removing exFat from standard or invalidating its patent claims would be even nicer.

  8. #8

    Default

    That's funny - people want to destroy me because I see real Linux problems.

    Instead of trying to collaborate, trying to work as a whole, trying to change the way Linux is (mis)developed, trying to make Linux stable and usable for a long periods of time (you can work with the same Windows version for great many years before upgrading to a next version) - they blame me.

    Whoa!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    96

    Default

    We already have Universal Disk Format for sharing read/write data between OS X, Windows and Linux. It's even kind enough to enforce that all file names are valid Unicode, unlike most Linux file systems where they're just a byte string without NUL or slashes.

    I don't think having fast exFAT support is really going to matter.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    104

    Default Legal issues?

    I'm not convinced the exFAT patents are much of a blocker to mainline inclusion. Last I checked, the mainline kernel includes NTFS and FAT32 drivers and Microsoft has patents on both (and have successfully sued or extracted licenses from Android manufacturers over FAT32).

    EDIT: Apparently they don't have patents on NTFS, but FAT32 still stands.
    Last edited by gigaplex; 06-25-2013 at 11:33 PM. Reason: Error on NTFS legal status

Posting Permissions

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