Google Backtracks & Re-Enables EXT3/4 File-System Support In Chrome OS

[brosis]

This became popular on Reddit and Hacker News first. Slashdot and Phoronix followed later. All combined forces to storm the bug tracker

The power of raging 1-%ers!

[Dukenukemx]

Very Good. Very Good Indeed.

[GreatEmerald]

I understand the rage fox EXT4.
I can imagine that EXT3 can be still in use.
But, for the sake of Zarquon, how many people is still using EXT2?

It's the same driver, so enabling the support doesn't cost anything additional.

[Uqbar]

ext2, as a non-journalling filesystem, is better suited for small removable media (thumbdrives, SD cards etc) than ext3 or ext4. It's quite possibly still the most commonly used fs in that role (except FAT of course).

EXT4 has a non-journaled mode. No excuse to be still using EXT2 with those pesky limitations...

[Uqbar]

It's the same driver, so enabling the support doesn't cost anything additional.

I was just arguing why mentioning/defending/supporting EXT2 in modern times along with ChromeOS, floppies and old small thumb drives: those cases are so close to zero that you can say they are actually zero.

Instead, removing EXT* FSs from ChromeOS is clearly a political choice and not a technical one, with no clear (at least to me) background.
You can save a couple of MB of storage by deleting those kernel modules and the accompanying tools: a negligible 1/4000th of 8 GB storage found in some Chromebooks.
And you can save more or less the same amount of RAM, still negligible on a 1GB RAM Chromebook.
I think those won't steal a measurable amount of CPU cycles either.
So I second the rage. But I am against the arguments about EXT2 users being left behind.

[jimbohale]

I was just arguing why mentioning/defending/supporting EXT2 in modern times along with ChromeOS, floppies and old small thumb drives: those cases are so close to zero that you can say they are actually zero.

Instead, removing EXT* FSs from ChromeOS is clearly a political choice and not a technical one, with no clear (at least to me) background.
You can save a couple of MB of storage by deleting those kernel modules and the accompanying tools: a negligible 1/4000th of 8 GB storage found in some Chromebooks.
And you can save more or less the same amount of RAM, still negligible on a 1GB RAM Chromebook.
I think those won't steal a measurable amount of CPU cycles either.
So I second the rage. But I am against the arguments about EXT2 users being left behind.

If you are being serious, I suggest you remove your tinfoil hat. It was incredibly obvious (aka "clearly") that their logic was that they are having some issues (in particular, not being able to rename a volume which is very annoying for people including myself) with something that very few of their userbase use. They happen to use Linux, but they are not a Linux distribution per se. They are a simple browser for very simple people who probably know very little about much about their hardware. They are under the (correct) principal that when it comes to the average person, the less choices they have to make is the less that can go wrong. Obviously for advanced users that's not the case. If you're an advanced user you're probably not using ChromeOS, which is not designed for you and can't be designed for both types of people.

So, I issue this to the people who whined: Hop off. You helped nobody. YOUR reasons for wanting it added back in where probably political, especially from all of the users I saw who complained about it and in the same paragraph said 'who even uses ChromeOS, first step is install *insert linux distro*'. Live and let live.

[Uqbar]

Re: Wtf!

If you are being serious, I suggest you remove your tinfoil hat. It was incredibly obvious (aka "clearly") that their logic was that they are having some issues (in particular, not being able to rename a volume which is very annoying for people including myself) with something that very few of their userbase use. They happen to use Linux, but they are not a Linux distribution per se. They are a simple browser for very simple people who probably know very little about much about their hardware. They are under the (correct) principal that when it comes to the average person, the less choices they have to make is the less that can go wrong. Obviously for advanced users that's not the case. If you're an advanced user you're probably not using ChromeOS, which is not designed for you and can't be designed for both types of people.

So, I issue this to the people who whined: Hop off. You helped nobody. YOUR reasons for wanting it added back in where probably political, especially from all of the users I saw who complained about it and in the same paragraph said 'who even uses ChromeOS, first step is install *insert linux distro*'. Live and let live.

From Google point of view, that change attempt was just political. Not technical.

What do you mean "rename a volume"? In Linux this can have a few different meanings.

1. Changing the mount point/other mount options? Yes, you can, whatever FS you use (man 8 mount; man 5 fstab).
2. Changing the partition label? Yes, you can (man 8 tune2fs).
3. Changing the partition UUID? Yes, you can (same as above).
4. Changing any of the above with a web/HTML5 UI? Yes, you can (someone needs to do some coding with the above tools).

Like any other FS, EXT2 has limits. But they are not that bad, finally.

1. Maximum FS size is between 4TB and 32TB
2. Maximum file size is between 16GB and 2TB
3. Maximum directory depth is less than 32K
4. Access to crowded directory can be slow
5. If you run kernel v2.4 limits can be lower

Nonetheless, I would not say those limits put strong constraints to ChromeOS. Unless you are going to run it on "big iron".

Then, ChromeOS is a Linux distribution. It's smallish, it's web oriented, it just kicks the browser in. But it's still a Linux distribution.
Just like Android, FirefoxOS and the likes. They all bundle stuff along with a Linux kernel. No question.
Those choices about that bundled stuff are political. As it's a political decision to limit users capabilities.

Mainstream Linux distributions still support FAT12, FAT16, and Atari variant, but not AIFS.
Someone ported the former to the kernel v3 but none ported the latter.
It is technically possible and feasible. But none did it. For political reasons.

If you need AIFS, stay with kernel v2.
If you need kernel v3, upgrade the filesystem. It's just a backup+restore away.

I would forget about EXT2. Let's push for EXT4 support, as even EXT3 is fading out.

P.S.
I think I am serious enough not to wear any tinfoil hat, either real or conceptual.
But I could be badly wrong, of course.

[MoonMoon]

So now that Google changed their stance on this, how many of the complainers here will actually use ChromeOS? I guess the number comes down to be zero.
Congratulations, you just forced your opinion how Google's OS should work on that distro without even using it. Something many people on Phoronix usually blame Poettering or Red Hat to do.

[uid313]

If you are being serious, I suggest you remove your tinfoil hat. It was incredibly obvious (aka "clearly") that their logic was that they are having some issues (in particular, not being able to rename a volume which is very annoying for people including myself) with something that very few of their userbase use.

Then just hide the rename choice when the file system is ext4* ?
Or display the choice, but when the choice is activated it displays a message "File system does not support rename the volume.".

No need to remove the whole file system support, just because one desired feature is missing.

[MoonMoon]

Then just hide the rename choice when the file system is ext4* ?
Or display the choice, but when the choice is activated it displays a message "File system does not support rename the volume.".

No need to remove the whole file system support, just because one desired feature is missing.

Just become a ChromeOS developer and help them with that. In the meantime just stop telling other people which features they have to enable in their project.