ChromeOS Drops Support For EXT2/EXT3/EXT4 File-Systems

[phoronix]

Phoronix: ChromeOS Drops Support For EXT2/EXT3/EXT4 File-Systems

For the past year Google developers have been looking at dropping support for EXT* file-systems from ChromeOS while only today it's making the rounds on the Internet and of course Linux fans are enraged...

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

[verde]

If EXT4 is that better than NTFS, why ChromeOS chose to use NTFS? From compatibility reasons or is there any NTFS advantage?

[gbcox]

Disappointed, but not particularly surprised

Hope springs eternal that they will reverse this decision, but considering the strange lack of attention that Google seems to be giving to Linux it's not surprising. Another example is lack of Google Drive support. Dropbox, Copy, and Mega have clients. There is also support for Drive via third party developer Insync. If these companies can do it, Google obviously could. Another reason to give Firefox some love. I'm waiting for Google to drop Chrome for Linux.

[markg85]

Ehh, what!?

Is Google gone insane or something? EXT* is by far the most popular file system to use in a linux world and they just drop support for it. And the reason is JUST no rename support.
A big mistake imho.

[RealNC]

Wait, a Linux distro that doesn't support Linux file systems?

Are they trolling?

[Drago]

As I understand, this is just for the external FLASH drives. Internally ChromeOS uses EXT4 on the SSD.

[wardhan]

is google trying to be another m$ ?

Among the reasons for Google wanting to rid Chrome of EXT* support is over lack of easily relabeling EXT* volumes from their GUI.

for the first time i have visited chrome OS website to view their license. to my surpise, it just lists "TOS".
google has become just another freeloader.
for the time being or for just few days, persons involved in open source projects should stop contributing.
or developers should contribute their valuable time UNLESS THEY ARE PAID DIRECTLY BY GOOGLE OR THE SOFTWARE IS LICENSED UNDER GPL OR LGPL.

[mark45]

It's so bizarre.
I thot they'd go for Btrfs, but they actually went for FAT (the simplest and shittiest fs out there) and ntfs, omg.
But then it's ChromeOS - it's irrelevant just as its decisions.

[johnc]

This reminds me of when they essentially dropped Android support on Linux.

If anything they should be using their influence to push an open-source, royalty free flash FS on the market.

[chrisb]

It's so bizarre.
I thot they'd go for Btrfs, but they actually went for FAT (the simplest and shittiest fs out there) and ntfs, omg.
But then it's ChromeOS - it's irrelevant just as its decisions.

The operating system that got 21% of the US laptop market last year is irrelevant?

How many USB drives that get plugged into Chromebooks do you think are formatted with btrfs? The vast majority are going to be FAT, so it makes sense to support that.