Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Open-Source exFAT Implementation Reaches v1.0

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

  • brosis
    replied
    Originally posted by chithanh View Post
    What it doesn't have is being allowed to install inside a partition. UDF spec requires that the filesystem occupies the entire storage medium. But in practice, the operating systems ignore this restriction.
    Hello.
    External media in all Windows versions is disallowed to be partitioned.
    There seems to be some kind of a flag for the USB driver, which switches between "harddisk" and "usbdisk" modes.

    Under Linux there is no such exception, but any usb drive with partitions will *not* be recognized by Windows.

    Steps to reproduce:
    1) Attach any USB disk to Windows and open Disk Management
    2) Note, that you can't create partitions, regardless which FS.

    1) Attach any USB disk to Linux and create at least one unformatted partition without filesystem.
    2) Attach this USB disk to Windows and note that the drive will not be recognized.
    3) If you delete the partitions, Windows will recognize the drive again and follow restriction 2 above.

    Personally, I find the global adaption of JFFS2 would be more than adequate.
    Last edited by brosis; 01-22-2013, 02:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    Originally posted by plonoma View Post
    The SD card standard organization should have done a mechanism of indicating a file system, describing what file system is on the card instead of having this nonsense.

    This way we can have both:
    - for older systems you can use older file systems with less code change
    - for newer systems you can use newer file systems with better features, better adapted for the use case.
    - makes the standard simpler and easier to implement for hardware makers
    The filesystem makes zero difference, because you can always reformat it to whatever you like. It's just there for people who don't know how to do that, and the same people are not likely to care about what filesystem it is in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • plonoma
    replied
    The SD card standard organization should have done a mechanism of indicating a file system, describing what file system is on the card instead of having this nonsense.

    This way we can have both:
    - for older systems you can use older file systems with less code change
    - for newer systems you can use newer file systems with better features, better adapted for the use case.
    - makes the standard simpler and easier to implement for hardware makers
    Last edited by plonoma; 01-22-2013, 11:24 AM. Reason: better wording

    Leave a comment:


  • tomato
    replied
    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
    Hum, gee, I wonder why nobody's ever thought of that before??? Truly so easy to circumvent all patent issues, all you need to do is build a simple system capable of downloading and installing something from the interwebz rather than shipping it pre-installed, then you can trade around all kinds of stuff, like wondoze, osx, free movies, free music, and free pr0n.

    Duh... sorry, my friend, that's not how it works.
    Distribution is distribution is distribution. It makes no difference if you pre-install it, supply physical media, or have people download it from the interwebz. Its still in violation of copyright/patent/etc.
    If the software is developed and distributed from servers outside of United Corporations of America, MS can't do s** about it. That's why Archlinux can ship software with mp3 decoders compiled in as it's a Canadian distro.

    Leave a comment:


  • archibald
    replied
    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
    Distribution is distribution is distribution. It makes no difference if you pre-install it, supply physical media, or have people download it from the interwebz. Its still in violation of copyright/patent/etc.
    But if you get people do download the required binary (that was compiled by somebody else), then you aren't distributing.
    Last edited by archibald; 01-21-2013, 07:21 PM. Reason: added parentheses and the verb 'compiled'

    Leave a comment:


  • droidhacker
    replied
    Originally posted by newwen View Post
    To avoid having to license it, you could always ship your product without the exFAT driver installed, and prompt the user to automatically download and install the GLPed driver whenever an exFAT formated device is connected. Requiring end user intervention to download the driver, I believe you can circumvent all patent issues.

    Anyway, the good thing about this free driver is that if someone ships the product with the GPL exFAT code, he cannot negotiate with Microsoft any licensing that involves "per device licenses", even if he wanted to, as the GPL prohibits it. This means that the license could not cover the only the defendant but everyone in the free software community whose products are derived from that GPL.
    Hum, gee, I wonder why nobody's ever thought of that before??? Truly so easy to circumvent all patent issues, all you need to do is build a simple system capable of downloading and installing something from the interwebz rather than shipping it pre-installed, then you can trade around all kinds of stuff, like wondoze, osx, free movies, free music, and free pr0n.

    Duh... sorry, my friend, that's not how it works.
    Distribution is distribution is distribution. It makes no difference if you pre-install it, supply physical media, or have people download it from the interwebz. Its still in violation of copyright/patent/etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    Originally posted by chithanh View Post
    What it doesn't have is being allowed to install inside a partition. UDF spec requires that the filesystem occupies the entire storage medium. But in practice, the operating systems ignore this restriction.
    Not that you need partitions on a typical USB drive, anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLexMachine
    replied
    Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    exfat and vfat are pretty much completely unrelated besides the name and the fact they were both developed by microsoft. The memory cards up to 32gb are required to use vfat, but above that (64gb+) they, and devices that read them, are only required to support exfat (they can have vfat, but there is no guarantee that devices will support it).
    Any non-specialized device you can find that uses exFAT also fully supports the older FAT16/FAT32 filesystem by design and memory cards above 32GB are NOT required to use exFAT. You can format a 64GB SDXC card with FAT32 - not using Windows built-in format utility - and use it in any DSLR or digital camera without any problems as FAT32 works fine with all high-capacity flash memory media in existence today. All DSLRs use FAT32 for Compact Flash cards, even the 64 and 128GB ones. exFAT is not mandatory for any devices or flash memory cards, it is simply used as the default filesystem for many digital devices because it supports large file sizes above 4GB, which really isn't useful outside of A/V recording.

    Leave a comment:


  • chithanh
    replied
    Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    UDF has a "hard disk" mode, and it has features nearing what NTFS has.
    What it doesn't have is being allowed to install inside a partition. UDF spec requires that the filesystem occupies the entire storage medium. But in practice, the operating systems ignore this restriction.

    Leave a comment:


  • chithanh
    replied
    Originally posted by Redi44 View Post
    Still it looks like the best format if you want to move data between OS X, Win and Linux....
    No, that's UDF <=2.01

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X