the non-fuse exFat kernel module has been released and available here: https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse
tested on 3.8.11, needs fixes to work with kernel 3.9+
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Linux Support For Microsoft's exFAT File-System
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostA spec is useless if code is never created to benefit the large majority of users out there and can never be expected to become mainstream catering to a small niche group of users.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BhaKi View PostHow many "other OS's" are there? I'm writing a micro-kernel myself. Can I ask FS-code writers to write a port of the FS for my OS? You can NEVER port something to an infinite number of OSes. All you can do (and should do) is to fight for open specifications, not open source. Anything that is (Windows + Linux)-specific or (Windows + Linux + Mac)-specific is just as bad as being Windows-specific or Linux-specific. The only FSs that deserve to be called as "open filesystems" are those that have open specifications.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostHindered or not, if the FS does not have a port to other OS's it's just as useless outside of it's native OS.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by piquadrat View PostThe Linux/BSD-community already came up with plenty of alternatives, e.g. the very lightweight ext2.
But, and here is why politics matter, no file system will ever have a chance to become the successor of FAT32 as the interoperable file system without Microsoft's blessing. They still hold an overwhelming percentage of the market.
In other words: what they distribute with Windows becomes a defacto standard, especially with something like a file system.
Most Windows users have no idea what a file system is or that their computer has got something like that. They won't go to fs-driver.org to download an ext2 driver.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostBooo Hooo, I don't see other file systems bending over backwards to accommodate other OS's as well. So MS makes another FS, so what. I don't see the opensource community making their file systems easily accessible on windows, os x, insert alternative OS name here. If you run 64-bit windows the only option you have is a slow ext driver, Perhaps if the foss community would put some effort into making their FS easily accessible in windows you wouldn't have to worry about stuff like this. I only can dream so far of being to easily r/w to filesystems like btrfs, xfs, etc in windows.
Leave a comment:
-
There's already JFFS2 and YAFFS, but of course, M$ is always right...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostNo, I'm saying instead of bitching what people can't change, do what they can do and that is come up with a viable alternative supported on all platforms and stop worrying about what some corp is doing on their product. When it comes to things like filesystems there should be less politics
In other words: what they distribute with Windows becomes a defacto standard, especially with something like a file system. Most Windows users have no idea what a file system is or that their computer has got something like that. They won't go to fs-driver.org to download an ext2 driver.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by KDesk View PostThe same as usual, the companies should stay with Fat32 and not accept this crap of FS.
Also, exFat didn't have advantages compared to NFTS or Fat32.
http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/infor...ntfs-vs-exfat/
This might explain why the SD Association didn't go with something like UDF: exFAT seems to just be an extension of FAT32, so it probably doesn't take much work to modify existing products to use it.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: