Linux's exFAT File-System Driver Can Now "FSCK" As Fast As Windows

[starshipeleven]

Now that Microsoft has joined the Open Invention Network, why hasn't there been any push to upstream an NTFS driver? I believe the day they joined the OIN, a patchset went out for exFAT, but no NTFS.

none wants NTFS in Linux as first-class citizen because it's a shitty filesystem, the userspace driver is enough for interoperability.

exfat and FAT on the other hand make sense as that's what most external flash drives and SDs use, and it's a fine low-overhead simple filesystem that microcontrollers can also use.

[starshipeleven]

Wait I thought it was chkdsk on Windows? (not fsck?)

yes you are right

[johannesburgel]

Now that Microsoft has joined the Open Invention Network, why hasn't there been any push to upstream an NTFS driver? I believe the day they joined the OIN, a patchset went out for exFAT, but no NTFS.

Microsoft never entered any patents into the OIN. They've spun everything off into patent licensing subsidiaries which didn't join the OIN, so Microsoft joining the OIN was just a worthless publicity stunt. Everybody who is using in-kernel exFAT driver is relying on Microsoft's goodwill and not on a legally binding agreement.

[stikonas]

Microsoft never entered any patents into the OIN. They've spun everything off into patent licensing subsidiaries which didn't join the OIN, so Microsoft joining the OIN was just a worthless publicity stunt. Everybody who is using in-kernel exFAT driver is relying on Microsoft's goodwill and not on a legally binding agreement.

They might also be living in a country without stupid software patents.

[torsionbar28]

Microsoft never entered any patents into the OIN. They've spun everything off into patent licensing subsidiaries which didn't join the OIN, so Microsoft joining the OIN was just a worthless publicity stunt. Everybody who is using in-kernel exFAT driver is relying on Microsoft's goodwill and not on a legally binding agreement.

This 100%. Microsoft has a single goal. One. To make more money for Microsoft. Not that that's a bad thing in itself, but every action and decision must be evaluated with the understanding that it supports the One Goal in some fashion. Microsoft's joining OIN is of course nothing more than a publicity stunt, driven by their marketing department rather than engineering. Outside of token gestures, they have no interest in "contributing" or "giving back" anything to anyone. Whether you agree with software patents or not is irrelevant; the fact is they have monetary value, and Microsoft will never ever give away something that has value, *especially* to a community that produces a product (server operating system) that competes directly with their own.

[oiaohm]

Microsoft never entered any patents into the OIN. They've spun everything off into patent licensing subsidiaries which didn't join the OIN, so Microsoft joining the OIN was just a worthless publicity stunt. Everybody who is using in-kernel exFAT driver is relying on Microsoft's goodwill and not on a legally binding agreement.

This is not true.

IBM legal wrote the base to the OIN agreement. Sorry to say it covers subsidiaries, The way OIN agreement works out is if any of those subsidiaries of Microsoft attacks Linux that is defined by OIN Microsoft who signed the OIN agreement is required to protect the OIN defined of Linux. Of course Microsoft has a binding agreement on all the patent licensing subsidiaries so they cannot go to court with Microsoft at all. Funny point when Microsoft first sold of patents they did not do binding agreement on patent licensing subsidiaries and one of those subsidiaries took Microsoft to court and in fact won against Microsoft. Its a lot simpler in court to prove the person who sold you the patent is in fact using it than any other party.

Now the fact Microsoft has not give exFAT patents to OIN group means that OIN members cannot go and put exFAT in their own non Linux based OS without paying Microsoft. Not that Microsoft can allow patents attack Linux.

This 100%. Microsoft has a single goal. One. To make more money for Microsoft. Not that that's a bad thing in itself, but every action and decision must be evaluated with the understanding that it supports the One Goal in some fashion. Microsoft's joining OIN is of course nothing more than a publicity stunt, driven by their marketing department rather than engineering. Outside of token gestures, they have no interest in "contributing" or "giving back" anything to anyone. Whether you agree with software patents or not is irrelevant; the fact is they have monetary value, and Microsoft will never ever give away something that has value, *especially* to a community that produces a product (server operating system) that competes directly with their own.

Sorry to say Microsoft joining OIN and allowing exfat only with Linux solutions for free is to make more money by not being forced to pay samsung for patents if samsung wins to use their own file system on flash media in standard bodies.

Microsoft join OIN and allowing linux define by OIN to cover exfat was to attempt to get Samsung to stop asking the standard bodies for flash media to default to f2fs. Of course if major flash media mandated samsung f2fs format this would put Microsoft in the Location where they would have to implement f2fs and that would also be a unknown patent location for Microsoft as well as losing control of file permissions and other things that f2fs defines in a Linux way. Samsung being one of the major flash makers has quite a bit of sway with the flash standard bodies yes there is a high chance at some point samsung would win if Microsoft did not soften up a bit on exfat.

Yes samsung provides the lead developer to have current exfat in the Linux kernel. So exfat being in Linux kernel and Microsoft agree from OIN to cover it is all about a on going dispute between Samsung and Microsoft that threatens to cost Microsoft a lot more than the profits lost not being apply exfat patents to people using the Linux kernel.

Yes Samsung is adding the exfatprogs usermode programs to the OIN define of what Linux is. Yes this could lead to the funny location where a third party OS can create fsck exFAT but cannot use exfat for storing files. This could be useful in Samsung production lines.

Please note Microsoft has only allowed exfat to be protected by the OIN agreement over what OIN defines as Linux. Microsoft has not allowed the Texfat or any of the other extensions to exfat at this stage. This is in fact important because Microsoft can still do what they did with fat when they added long filenames to exfat as in add a feature to exfat that all versions of windows mandate you use to be compatible yet is not covered by the OIN agreement because that extended feature added to exfat is no longer exfat but like texfat.

Yes correct distrust of Microsoft in the exfat case is important. OIN agreement with Microsoft is legally binding that is not the issue. Microsoft even so the OIN agreement does have some wiggle room Microsoft could exploit down the line while Microsoft does or does not donate the exfat patents. OIN does not give any Members by contract the legal means to allow attack on OIN defined Linux.

Remember Linux being allowed exfat by OIN define of Linux does not mean Linux competitor OS like freebsd are allowed to implement exfat. OIN agreement is very Linux centric.

Think cameras and other things that currently pay Microsoft for exfat lots of them don't use Linux inside if those started all using f2fs or the like because samsung won standard body over flash this money goes by by for Microsoft. Microsoft halve way with OIN over exfat is truly about money and the on going arguement between samsung and Microsoft over flash file systems.

[wswartzendruber]

Huh huh, huh huh, huh... Hey... Beavis... exFAT can now "fsck" as fast as it can on Windows...

[skeevy420]

Huh huh, huh huh, huh... Hey... Beavis... exFAT can now "fsck" as fast as it can on Windows...

You posted that at the perfect time.