Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • brosis
    replied
    Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
    They didn't ignore H264, their aPNG was ignored by Google yet they still added WebP, and html5 DRM is part of the spec.

    As far as the Microsoft support goes, what are you talking about exactly?
    I read WebP Mozilla bug page, have you? What is the reason of disagreement? Non-adoption! Says a browser with largest influence. BS much?
    Apng is much more inferrior to WebP!
    Same goes to HTML5 DRM! Part of the specs? You control the specs! What is Mozillas mission and how does it go along?
    They did completely ignore H264 - in times when it was added at HTML5 level, mozilla did nothing to work with google and make sure WebM establishes as real royality free standart! Again they failed. They are talking politics, not their mission!

    Microsoft support? You cant be serious! Ever been on their IRC? Ever asked a question why Fx does not build, when problem happens? "Oh! Its another Linux user!" "Oh, Linux as always" and so on.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheBlackCat
    replied
    Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
    As far as the Microsoft support goes, what are you talking about exactly?
    Mozilla devs have repeatedly said that their top priority is Windows, and that Linux support is much less important to them.

    Leave a comment:


  • profoundWHALE
    replied
    Originally posted by brosis View Post
    Mozilla on other hand, has been prioritizing microsoft support much much higher - and if same situation would happen within Mozilla, they will very probably ignore everything. Same way they ignored H264, ignored WebP, ignored protests against html5 DRM.
    They didn't ignore H264, their aPNG was ignored by Google yet they still added WebP, and html5 DRM is part of the spec.

    As far as the Microsoft support goes, what are you talking about exactly?

    Leave a comment:


  • brosis
    replied
    Originally posted by emblemparade View Post
    Nice that they will fix this, but the damage has been done. Both in ChromeOS and in Android, Google has proven that they will use free software only as long as it immediately benefits their goals. They have no real loyalty to the upstream, and no particular loyalty to the ethics of free software.

    I am sure that if, in the future, Linux becomes too much work for them in terms of collaboration with the community, they will simply "pull an Apple": rebase Android/ChromeOS on a BSD, and stop even trying to contribute upstream.

    Via Android, Linux has come to dominate the mobile world, which is amazing. But we should not rest on our laurels. Android is seeing more and more core elements becoming proprietary every day. At some point, Google will replace the kernel, too.

    I know it's popular here to hate on Canonical. Of course they made BIG mistakes in the past in communicating their decision process to the community (that remind me a bit of Google's weird decision here with ext filesystems). But the fact is, Canonical is truly commited to free software, and for every feature it removes, it provides support for alternatives (Xubuntu, Kubuntu, etc.). We should do everything we can to make sure Ubuntu Touch succeeds, so that when Google finally throws Linux away, we'll still be able to have free (libre) mobile devices. Don't like Ubuntu Touch? It's still Ubuntu, and I'm sure alternative mobile UIs will be available (I'm planning to make one myself!), building on the solid foundations of Linux and FLOSS.

    (For the same reason, we should be promoting Firefox over Chrome. Mozilla's commitments are crystal clear. Google simply cannot be trusted.)
    No, google immediately reverted its steps. Damage has been undone. It is perfectly normal that they follow financial interests, what is worth attention - is if their actions cause echo damage in original projects, here it would be Linux kernel. It didnt happen. With Canonical it was with systemd, git, wayland.

    Canonical is not using the same architecture as Android, which may be seen as benefactory, except when not their typical way of fragmenting community and damaging infrastructure. Its same way that they propose themself as "Ubuntu" without any "Linux", "GNU", "Free software" etc. They are not Linux, they are Ubuntu. Funny enough is fact that by such historical actions they do not comply to term "Ubuntu" itself. They are "MarkOS". Look how Google forks - license stays same. No CLA, they state it explicitly, they contribute back, if they tend to break away, they advertise it directly - not hideously, they do not slow down or embroil the upstream projects.

    Mozilla on other hand, has been prioritizing microsoft support much much higher - and if same situation would happen within Mozilla, they will very probably ignore everything. Same way they ignored H264, ignored WebP, ignored protests against html5 DRM.

    None of the three can be trusted, dont fool yourself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Espionage724
    replied
    From my understanding of the situation, it would seem the decision to remove EXT support started months ago. Only recently did it become a public issue. So there was plenty of time to voice opinions in the past, but a quick glance at the bug report showed very few people being against the decision. Then once the decision was done, people were up in arms about it (or really, most people seemingly were displeased at the thought of a Linux-based OS dropping support for EXT; regardless if it would have actually inconvenienced them or not), and the decision was reverted.

    Can't say I really see any issues here...

    Leave a comment:


  • emblemparade
    replied
    Originally posted by facorread View Post
    If the day comes that Google replaces the Android kernel, we will keep working on the Linux kernel and Google will not be able to take their contributions back.
    Well, this is true. But it's also true that Google creates platforms on which we build, as does Mozilla. Beyond that fact that the code is free, we need to trust that the project is in good hands, and that the effort we put into it will not go to waste.

    Remember the DivX/Xvid story? DivX ended up closing its source. The last free version was forked into Xvid, and they've done a great job in keeping it going. But this required effort by a community of dedicated programmers. (Xvid continues to try to build a business model based on free software and open standards; please support them!)

    With Android, we've seen it forked into CyanogenMod, but already now CyanogenMod seems to be going the DivX way ... if they get into big money, they may decide to make proprietary components for their customers. So, would Android be forked yet again by a new community?

    You can see that this is risky. The GPL is important, but so are intentions and future plans. Look at Mozilla and look at Google: who do you trust more to build the foundations of an open web?

    Leave a comment:


  • facorread
    replied
    Originally posted by emblemparade View Post
    Nice that they will fix this, but the damage has been done. Both in ChromeOS and in Android, Google has proven that they will use free software only as long as it immediately benefits their goals. They have no real loyalty to the upstream, and no particular loyalty to the ethics of free software.

    I am sure that if, in the future, Linux becomes too much work for them in terms of collaboration with the community, they will simply "pull an Apple": rebase Android/ChromeOS on a BSD, and stop even trying to contribute upstream.

    Via Android, Linux has come to dominate the mobile world, which is amazing. But we should not rest on our laurels. Android is seeing more and more core elements becoming proprietary every day. At some point, Google will replace the kernel, too.

    I know it's popular here to hate on Canonical. Of course they made BIG mistakes in the past in communicating their decision process to the community (that remind me a bit of Google's weird decision here with ext filesystems). But the fact is, Canonical is truly commited to free software, and for every feature it removes, it provides support for alternatives (Xubuntu, Kubuntu, etc.). We should do everything we can to make sure Ubuntu Touch succeeds, so that when Google finally throws Linux away, we'll still be able to have free (libre) mobile devices. Don't like Ubuntu Touch? It's still Ubuntu, and I'm sure alternative mobile UIs will be available (I'm planning to make one myself!), building on the solid foundations of Linux and FLOSS.

    (For the same reason, we should be promoting Firefox over Chrome. Mozilla's commitments are crystal clear. Google simply cannot be trusted.)
    I respectfully disagree; the removal of this specific feature could have been a wrong choice by a couple of devs and a supervisor. In fact, the reversion just showed us that the same guys are willing to listen to what people has to say. Google is not an all-good-or-evil corporation. Loyalty is not to be judged by one wrong action of a couple of guys alone, but it should be measured in terms of all of the google devs' contributions to free and open source software, which can be seen in their public source code commits, as well as other right and wrong choices from Google's history with the FOSS community.

    Google may always pull an Apple on all of us, but Chrome OS is already on the hands of the public through open source licenses.

    If the day comes that Google replaces the Android kernel, we will keep working on the Linux kernel and Google will not be able to take their contributions back.

    All open source contributors make mistakes every now and then. That does not make organizations all-bad or all-good. Let's just keep our voices up to be heard and shape the open source world together.

    Leave a comment:


  • emblemparade
    replied
    Nice that they will fix this, but the damage has been done. Both in ChromeOS and in Android, Google has proven that they will use free software only as long as it immediately benefits their goals. They have no real loyalty to the upstream, and no particular loyalty to the ethics of free software.

    I am sure that if, in the future, Linux becomes too much work for them in terms of collaboration with the community, they will simply "pull an Apple": rebase Android/ChromeOS on a BSD, and stop even trying to contribute upstream.

    Via Android, Linux has come to dominate the mobile world, which is amazing. But we should not rest on our laurels. Android is seeing more and more core elements becoming proprietary every day. At some point, Google will replace the kernel, too.

    I know it's popular here to hate on Canonical. Of course they made BIG mistakes in the past in communicating their decision process to the community (that remind me a bit of Google's weird decision here with ext filesystems). But the fact is, Canonical is truly commited to free software, and for every feature it removes, it provides support for alternatives (Xubuntu, Kubuntu, etc.). We should do everything we can to make sure Ubuntu Touch succeeds, so that when Google finally throws Linux away, we'll still be able to have free (libre) mobile devices. Don't like Ubuntu Touch? It's still Ubuntu, and I'm sure alternative mobile UIs will be available (I'm planning to make one myself!), building on the solid foundations of Linux and FLOSS.

    (For the same reason, we should be promoting Firefox over Chrome. Mozilla's commitments are crystal clear. Google simply cannot be trusted.)

    Leave a comment:


  • facorread
    replied
    EXT* support will be back

    Due to the overwhelming response, Google retraced their steps.

    Chromium Bug
    Thanks for all of your feedback on this bug. We've heard you loud and clear.

    We plan to re-enable ext2/3/4 support in Files.app immediately. It will come back, just like it was before, and we're working to get it into the next stable channel release.

    Leave a comment:


  • brosis
    replied
    Originally posted by Remdul View Post
    I hate google, but damn yes I fully agree with this. Linux needs proper disk labeling. I've never been able to install Linux on a machine properly because there's no reliable way to identify the hardware. Seriously, how am I supposed to know which drive/partition is which when the cryptic code changes every time on boot? I always physically remove disks so there is only one drive that can be ruined. It's a confusing (and undocumented) mess.

    I hope this decision by google this will bring this issue to attention.
    Hahahaha!

    man blkid
    man tune2fs | grep 'UUID'

    You can mount by:
    - drive position on controler
    - label
    - partition UUID
    - hardware serial

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X