Slashdot Mirror
Which Filesystem Do You Use On Portable Media For Linux Systems?
An anonymous reader writes "Most people use MS filesystems on Disk-On-Keys, and portable hard drives, as these are readable from most machines. But this way you lose the files' permission information, which many times is very inconvenient (you must agree that having Ubuntu asking you whether to execute or display every text file or image you open from a DOK is annoying). Using 'regular' Linux filesystems like ext keeps the permissions, but may require using the superuser when switching machines (as the UIDs are different). So do any of you have a creative solution for this problem?"
Use NTFS?
Then, if I need to preserve Linux file settings I'll zip, tar, or cpio and store them on the stick that way.
Loading...
What? Who on earth calls it a Disk on Key?
This is hardly a problem unique to Linux, although as you point out Linux does have its own special requirements that may make using FAT32 a bit problematic.
My home network is a combination of Mac OS X clients and Linux servers (Debian is so easily made so Mac friendly...). I have a USB key that I don't tend to use too often (online storage has removed much of that need), but I did decide at one point that easy interoperability between OS's was important, while at the same time needing OS-specific support from time-to-time, for specific applications and data.
My solution? I formatted my key for FAT32, and then created some disk images on the key formatted them to whatever OS-specific format was suitable (HFS+, ext3, etc.). By leaving sufficient room on the main FAT32 volume, I can readily store platform-neutral data, and inside the images I can store whatever OS-specific data (such as applications) that don't need to be accessible on every system I encounter.
This does require an extra mounting steps. In OS X, it entails plugging in the key, and then double-clicking on the DMG file to mount it. In Linux, I have to mount the ext3 image using the loop pseudo-device. Of course, this is only necessary if attempting to access data in one of the OS-specific formatted images: accessing shared data merely requires mounting the key itself (generally automatically handled by the OS).
It's hardly perfect, but it does mean you can have one key that can have both shared and OS-specific data on it for as many OS's as you'd like to have at your disposal.
Yaz.
Sure it does.
http://macntfs-3g.blogspot.com/
I prefer to just dd my data to the raw device. If there's more than one file, I might pipe it through tar first. This process makes it much more portable and universal.
I had the exact same problem a while back. My solution was a little less straightforward than some, but is still simple enough. Basically, I leverage the freeware software Ext2 IFS, which installs software onto Windows that allows it to recognize the contents of Ext2/3 partitions.
Basically, I have my disk formatted with two partitions:
On the FAT32 partition, I place the latest version of Ext2 IFS. When I access the system on my main Linux box, I just mount / use the Ext3 partition.
When I visit friends or family and I plug it into their Windows box for the first time, Windows recognizes the FAT32 partition, so I can install the Ext2 IFS software that I put onto that partition. From then on (and every subsequent access), Windows automatically mounts it!
Windows doesn't reflect the Ext3 permissions, but if you have physical, portable access to an unencrypted hard drive, those mean nothing anyway. And, of course, make sure to ask friends and family before installing filesystem drivers :)
UDF doesn't have a 2 GB file size limit like FAT32 and seems to be well supported by most operating systems. I don't really have any experience with it but I just formatted my USB stick with UDF just to see how it goes. /dev/disk/by-id/usb-LEXAR_JUMPDRIVE_ELITE
mkudffs --media-type=hd --vid=MyDiskLabel
It works fine in Linux.
It would be nice if the default was to pick a random arbitrary and large UID so the chance of UID clashes would be remote.
You know what would be great? If someone made a daemon for mapping UID's between machines. That'd be fantastic, but I'm sure no one else has thought of such a thing.
sofar wrote:
>mrcaseyj wrote:
>>
>>> C3ntaur wrote:
>>> I invite anyone who claims CO2 is not a pollutant to sit in a room full of it for 10 minutes.
>>
>> I invite anyone who claims pure water is not a pollutant to sit in a room full of it for 10 minutes.
>
> I invite anyone who claims pure oxygen is not a pollutant to sit in a room full of it for 10 minutes
I invite anyone who claims pure vacuum is not a pollutant to sit in a room full of it for 10 minutes.
You are all wrong: in all these fatal scenarios, the common element is the room. Those do-gooders in Copenhagen should be negotiating an agreement on room reduction.
-- open source? sounds like the real book --
Hah, using NTFS actually causes MORE problems for the Windows user?
Format a usb drive NTFS, and put some files onto it. Now, attempt to use this drive on another windows machine.
Notice anything funny about the file permissions? Heh, this is the same problem Linux has with UID/GIDs on removable media!
Interesting how the 'correct' fix for both is to use an antiquated filesystem.
I wonder if and when we will ever see an equivalent of FAT64, to get around file size issues.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I hear this bullshit often, and thats what it is, bullshit.
You're the bullshitter. Get out into the real world. There are billions of people, thousands of languages, thousands of accounting standards. Many are not supported by windows, many are in the third world where the price of windows is a deal breaker, many are conforming to standards you've never heard of, many want software they control, many detest DRM and all it stands for, and many are thinking long term and not the short-term, blinkered thinking you're professing.
M$ marketing and people sucked in by their propaganda like to claim Windows is the only possible alternative however it's just a dishonest attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophesy.
In reality windows is only one of a number of alternatives, nothing lasts forever, and one size does not fit all.
---
I never look at alternatives because I'm going to be running the same OS for the rest of eternity.