Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    You say you have ChromeBooks, but are they running ChromeOS? That is the critical question here, If so you're one of the few people justified in complaining about this if you choose to do so.
    *All* run ChromeOS.
    Some also run crouton. FWIW the one that I use daily is completely stock. *, **

    And yes I know that Fedora intentionally doesn't include Chrome which is why I chose it as an example. It would be just as stupid in my opinion for someone using Ubuntu, or openSUSE or whatever to yell at Fedora for not choosing to include it, as people are being about mobbing Google over ChromeOS when it doesn't effect them at all.
    ... So I gave you a case in which people that *are* using stock Chromebook needing ext4...

    - Gilboa
    * Which is ironic given the fact that its the only server/workstation/laptop/tablet/cellphone that still use stock OS, everything else runs Fedora / Cyanogenmod...
    ** I may install Fedora on one of them in the future, but to be honest, I've yet to find a solid reason to do so. (If I need to do something beyond browsing / email / etc, I can always use my Laptop / workstation).
    oVirt-HV1: Intel S2600C0, 2xE5-2658V2, 128GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX1080 (to-VM), Dell U3219Q.
    oVirt-HV2: Intel S2400GP2, 2xE5-2448L, 120GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX550 (to-VM).
    oVirt-HV3: Gigabyte B85M-HD3, E3-1245V3, 32GB, 4x1TB, 2x480GB SSD, GTX980 (to-VM), Dell U2711.
    Devel-2: Asus H110M-K, i5-6500, 16GB, 3x1TB + 128GB-SSD, F33.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Temar View Post
      Hmm, is this a desperate attempt to increase the Linux distribution market share?

      Yes, Android uses a fork of the Linux kernel but meanwhile it's pretty far off from the vanilla kernel. Android kernel has ashmem, pmem, binder IPC, wakelocks, paranoid networking and a lot more. With a vanilla Linux kernel you could not even boot the system.

      Calling Android a Linux distribution only sounds extremely desperate, even though in the broadest sense, it technically is correct. I don't think you are doing the Linux community a favor by trying to define Android as a Linux distribution.
      Android uses Linux with some patches pretty much like any other major commercial distribution including RHEL and SUSE. The non upstream patches in Android are reducing over time since upstream is merging them or functional equivalents.

      "The Android kernel patches. There has been much gnashing of teeth about the out-of-tree Android patches over the years. At this point, though, the bulk of that code has been merged upstream. In some cases, including the infamous wakelocks, an alternative solution was developed upstream and Android has migrated over to it. The biggest remaining piece is the ION memory allocator; that code has now found its way into the staging tree for the 3.14 release."

      http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/lwf

      So calling Android a Linux distribution is fair. It is just different from the typical Linux kernel + GNU userland stack.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
        So much this... Additionally if the number of people here using ChromeOS is non-Zero how many of said people are actually using ext4 on a flashdrive? Because I'm sorry to break it to you folks but ext only really works in Linux, and really if you're in any sort of mixed environment at all, your flash drive is going to be formatted in one of the following three formats: FAT, NTFS, or UDF, and really you should be using UDF.
        i am using ext on an external drive and no, udf is no option for it as one of the systems accessing it is a media player that does not support udf. there is only one windows pc accessing it sometimes and for that i installed ext tools.

        though admitted, my situation is a rather rare case. but i still would insist on it as fat and ntfs are shit filesystems. it won't does us any favor helping out that they remain quasi-standard for heterogene data transfers.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
          So calling Android a Linux distribution is fair. It is just different from the typical Linux kernel + GNU userland stack.
          Most people use that terminology to refer to a GNU/Linux userspace + kernel, and Android to refer to the Android/Linux userspace and kernel. With the userspace being just as important as the underlying kernel.

          You can choose to call it a linux distro if you want, but it's misleading to most people since that's not how they define things.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by brosis View Post
            There is Ext1-4 as filesystem. And there is Ext1-4 as filesystem driver.
            Most people use Ext2 as a non-journaling FS with Ext4 driver. Removable media and /boot partitions due to extreme low overhead due to absence of journal, and disadvantage of journal due to constant overwriting of same disk portion causing early wear out. When one uses tune2fs to remove journal from ext4, this downgrades it into ext2-like FS.
            You can use ext4 without journal and its much better than ext2. Simply do mkfs.ext4 -O ^has_journal and forget about ext2/3.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
              Most people use that terminology to refer to a GNU/Linux userspace + kernel, and Android to refer to the Android/Linux userspace and kernel. With the userspace being just as important as the underlying kernel.

              You can choose to call it a linux distro if you want, but it's misleading to most people since that's not how they define things.
              I don't think you can make an assertion on what most people define. Such loosely held definitions evolve with usage anyway. We have several popular Linux embedded distros that use a very different userspace (busybox, No X etc) and we have no problem accepting them as Linux distributions. There is no particular reason to exclude Android.

              Comment


              • #37
                Some people have problems accepting embedded distros as "Linux distributions" because that would affect their perception about the relative success of Linux distributions.

                Someone who isn't poor and lives in a first-world country typically owns three network-connected Linux computers:
                An Android phone,
                a DSL/Cable/broadband router running Linux (according to my anecdotal observations OpenWrt derivatives are on the rise here),
                a smart TV running one of the various distros for TVs.

                Ubuntu, Debian, ChromeOS and all the other desktop/server distros are just a blip on the radar compared to the numbers of the aforementioned.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                  I don't think you can make an assertion on what most people define. Such loosely held definitions evolve with usage anyway.
                  That applies equally towards you.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                    That applies equally towards you.
                    Sure but I am not asserting any limitations on what counts as a linux distribution. Unless you are going to exclude any distribution that doesn't include the typical GNU userland, I don't see why you would exclude Android. You are welcome to clarify your position.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                      Sure but I am not asserting any limitations on what counts as a linux distribution. Unless you are going to exclude any distribution that doesn't include the typical GNU userland, I don't see why you would exclude Android. You are welcome to clarify your position.
                      You're asserting an expansion on what counts as a linux distro just as much as I'm asserting a limitation.

                      It works both ways. If i can't say it's generally accepted that Android isn't a linux distro, you can't claim that it is, and that i need to somehow prove otherwise.

                      Anyway, depending on just how much that userland departs from a typical GNU userland, i would distinguish it from a linux distro. But it depends on how much it differs. It would take quite a bit - on the order of android, for example.
                      Last edited by smitty3268; 24 October 2014, 11:54 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X