Open Source ExFAT File System Reaches 1.0 Status

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Source ExFAT File System Reaches 1.0 Status

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday January 23, 2013 @10:02AM from the progress-bar-finished dept.

Titus Andronicus writes "fuse-exfat, a GPLv3 implementation of the exFAT file system for Linux, FreeBSD, and OS X, has reached 1.0 status, according to an announcement from Andrew Nayenko, the primary developer. exFAT is a file system designed for sneaker-netting terabyte-scale files and groups of files on flash drives and memory cards between and among Windows, OS X, and consumer electronics devices. It was introduced by Microsoft in late 2006. Will fuse-exfat cut into Microsoft's juicy exFAT licensing revenue? Will Microsoft litigate fuse-exfat's developers and users into patent oblivion? Will there be a DKMS dynamic kernel module version of the software, similar to the ZFS on Linux project? All that remains to be seen. ReadWrite, The H, and Phoronix cover the story."

151 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The wrong way around by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 10:12 · Score: 0

Microsoft will never allow one of its modern file system to have an "official" implementation on free operating systems. There will be the threat of litigation or looming incompatibility and data loss through lack of public documentation. That's why we shouldn't implement Microsoft's filesystems. Instead we should develop a simple and robust filesystem that's suitable for embedded systems and have it standardized. Right now there simply isn't an alternative to the FAT filesystems.
1. Re:The wrong way around by exomondo · 2013-01-23 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft will never allow one of its modern file system to have an "official" implementation on free operating systems.
  What do you mean by 'official'? You mean from Microsoft? If so yes they probably won't create a Linux implementation, but that's cool because there's this project, there's Paragon and there's Tuxera if you really want exFAT on Linux, just like NTFS. Alternatively you could use the ext file systems.
  
  There will be the threat of litigation or looming incompatibility and data loss through lack of public documentation.
  We've had the NTFS driver for a long time.
  
  Instead we should develop a simple and robust filesystem that's suitable for embedded systems and have it standardized.
  Go for it, ext3/4 is probably a good start.
2. Re:The wrong way around by MrEricSir · 2013-01-23 10:43 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Instead we should develop a simple and robust filesystem that's suitable for embedded systems and have it standardized. Right now there simply isn't an alternative to the FAT filesystems.
  Obligatory XKCD
  (Seriously though, patents on file system are bullshit.)
  
  --
  There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
3. Re:The wrong way around by SuricouRaven · 2013-01-23 10:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Standardise all you want. You should know what'll happen. Windows will not support it out the box, and if Windows doesn't support it, that filesystem is effectively dead. Who is going to want a USB stick formatted so it won't work on the operating system running on upwards of ninety percent of desktops and laptops?
4. Re:The wrong way around by SuricouRaven · 2013-01-23 10:56 · Score: 2
  
  NTFS on linux was created through many years of hard work reverse engineering the filesystem from no documentation - what little MS had published was only available under licenses that would render it useless for open-source development. That it works at all is impressive, that it works so well is a small miracle. Even now, NTFS support in linux has to be via the NTFS-3G userspace filesystem - full support was never included in the kernel itsself, only read-only access. That may well be the future of linux and exFAT: It works, but exists in a legal grey area where MS could unleash the lawyers on a whim and requires untidy hacks to get around legal problems.
5. Re:The wrong way around by blackiner · 2013-01-23 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Instead we should develop a simple and robust filesystem that's suitable for embedded systems and have it standardized. Right now there simply isn't an alternative to the FAT filesystems.
  It would seem that Samsung has already done just that: http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Kernel-Log-Coming-in-3-8-Part-1-Filesystems-and-storage-1788524.html
  
  Linux now supports F2fs (Flash-Friendly File System), a filesystem that was introduced by Samsung developers in October. It is designed for flash storage media that uses a more basic Flash Translation Layer (FTL) than SSDs for desktop PCs and servers – for example USB flash drives, memory cards and the storage media that is used in cameras, tablets and smartphones.
6. Re:The wrong way around by kwark · 2013-01-23 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Put the driver for the standardized/interop filesystem in a (comparitive small 1%) fat16 partition* on the same media. Include nice installers and use the autorun features of the OS. Problem solved.
  *: I had an older 512Gb USB drive that included the drivers for retarded windows versions on a seperate device, it emulated a cd with iso9960 of UDF.
7. Re:The wrong way around by tlhIngan · 2013-01-23 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft will never allow one of its modern file system to have an "official" implementation on free operating systems.
  What do you mean by 'official'? You mean from Microsoft? If so yes they probably won't create a Linux implementation, but that's cool because there's this project, there's Paragon and there's Tuxera if you really want exFAT on Linux, just like NTFS. Alternatively you could use the ext file systems.
  ExFAT is available for Linux. It's just that Microsoft's licensing terms prohibit an open-source implementation. And they're patent licenses, I believe, as well, not just getting at the specs.
  This is just one that's licensed under open-source terms, but one that Microsoft will probably not allow you to get licensed for. Or, in other words, there'll be a package for it on Google Play soon enough (though not for Jelly Bean, because Jelly Bean's Play Store introduces DRM and that's incompatible with GPLv3. But all the other Androids are fine as APKs then are not DRMed).
8. Re:The wrong way around by chmod+a+x+mojo · 2013-01-23 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  The kernel has ( or had, I haven't built one in a while ) experimental write support since at least the 2.6.18 branch or prior... I don't remember exactly when it was introduced. It is completely useless[1], but it is there.
  That said NTFS-3G really is the way to go. It also, as an added bonus, fits the UNIX philosophy: "Do one thing and do it right".
  [1] The in-kernel write support for NTFS only allows you to write to an existing file, and only allows you to write the same amount of data as the exact files size and name on the disk. Not very useful since you can not even create files.
  
  --
  To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
9. Re:The wrong way around by r1348 · 2013-01-23 11:09 · Score: 2
  
  fuse-exfat is also an userspace driver like ntfs-3g. If US-based distros like Fedora ar able to ship with ntfs-3g installed by default, they might be able to do the same with fuse-exfat, unless Microsoft closed the legal loophole used for ntfs-3g.
10. Re:The wrong way around by MightyMartian · 2013-01-23 11:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You can call FAT and its variants a lot of things, but "modern" isn't one of them.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
11. Re:The wrong way around by exomondo · 2013-01-23 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  NTFS support in linux has to be via the NTFS-3G userspace filesystem - full support was never included in the kernel itsself, only read-only access.
  It doesn't have to be, Linux maintainers don't want patent-encumbered specs implemented in the kernel, that's their choice, distro vendors may feel differently.
12. Re:The wrong way around by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  No, Ext3/4 is a bad start.
  Requirements for Open source "fat" filesystem:
  1. License that allows anyone to use it (Think BSD, MIT, X, etc)
  2. Few except necessary features (think embedded)
  3. Support volume sizes in excess of 100TB
  4. Support file sizes in excess of 10TB
  5. Windows drivers available free
  6. Mac drivers available free
13. Re:The wrong way around by peppepz · 2013-01-23 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  There's UDF. It works on Windows out of the box (most impotant feature), supports Unicode, large files and volumes, UNIX / DOS / OS2 / Mac file attributes and special files (symlinks, devices etc), and extended attributes. It works much faster than FAT on flash drives. And its specification is freely available. But it might be covered by patents too.
14. Re:The wrong way around by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 14:08 · Score: 0
  
  BeFS is pretty good for small (and indeed large filesystems). Im using it on an 8GB USB stick for my Haiku work, but without Windows supporting anything but MS formats technical prowess is irellevant.
15. Re:The wrong way around by aaron552 · 2013-01-23 15:12 · Score: 2
  
  Jelly Bean's Play Store introduces DRM and that's incompatible with GPLv3.
  I wasn't aware that the APK encryption in JellyBean was mandatory.
  
  --
  I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
16. Re:The wrong way around by aaron552 · 2013-01-23 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  It's not really a replacement for FAT, though. F2FS is very obviously designed for flash memory, whereas FAT is media-independent.
  
  --
  I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
17. Re:The wrong way around by aaron552 · 2013-01-23 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  It works on Windows out of the box
  Write support only works out of the box on Vista and later. Not a huge problem to work around, but it's there
  UDF certainly looks like the most appropriate candidate for a truly universal file system, though
  
  --
  I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
18. Re:The wrong way around by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  > This is just one that's licensed under open-source terms, but one that Microsoft will probably not allow you to get licensed for.
  All the Android vendors who are paying the Microsoft patent tax can probably use it just fine.
19. Re:The wrong way around by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 15:56 · Score: 0
  
  what about using the installer on locked down public or corporate machines?
  silly neckbeards... so short sighted...
20. Re:The wrong way around by dbIII · 2013-01-23 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  Patents on software are bullshit. That's the real reason why Nvidia doesn't have an open driver that patent trolls can look at.
21. Re:The wrong way around by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  Just that Microsoft recently axed autorun.
22. Re:The wrong way around by flargleblarg · 2013-01-23 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  > Who is going to want a USB stick formatted so it won't work on the operating system running on upwards of ninety percent of desktops and laptops?
  I, for one, would. Right now, I use HFS+ for everything (internal, external) but if OS X could read/write something that would also work on Linux, I'd be happy to use that. If it wasn't readable on a Windows machine, it wouldn't make a lick of difference to me.
23. Re:The wrong way around by billyswong · 2013-01-23 19:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How about when you are not admin? Installing software, especially drivers, are not always appropriate or even possible.
24. Re:The wrong way around by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 21:54 · Score: 0
  
  There is no "legal loophole", it's just that MS haven't claimed for patents on NTFS.
  As far as I can tell, exFAT is designed specifically to be a continuation of the FAT patent gravy train - there simply is no other reason to make yet another patented filesystem. So you can be sure that implementing it will require a bunch of Microsoft owned patents.
25. Re: The wrong way around by Titus+Andronicus · 2013-01-23 22:12 · Score: 1
  
  The Zevo ZFS and ZFS on Linux projects might be of use to someone with your set of requirements. They provide read/write access to ZFS filesystems for OS X and Linux, respectively. (AFAIK, a native Windows implementation of ZFS does not exist.)
26. Re:The wrong way around by petermgreen · 2013-01-23 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  That sort of thing worked in the win9x era when everyone had autorun enabled and there was little lockdown of systems. Nowadays it's going to mean your device can't be used with all the locked down desktops found in corporations and educational institutions.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
27. Re:The wrong way around by ssam · 2013-01-23 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  FAT is in the kernel (presumably reverse engineered). That is supposedly covered by patents. It should not really be any more dangerous to put ntfs, exfat or zfs in the kernel.
  (ZFS is slightly odd, in that there is already code that could easily be dropped in if it were not for licensing. It would need some to reimplement it under a GPL licence, but i guess while there is the faint possibility of the original code being relicensed no one will want to put in the work)
28. Re:The wrong way around by draconx · 2013-01-24 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  The in-kernel write support for NTFS only allows you to write to an existing file, and only allows you to write the same amount of data as the exact files size and name on the disk.
  This is not quite accurate: support for extending existing files w/ the in-kernel driver has been available for some time (ca. 2005). Apparently it can fail to extend the file if it is excessively fragmented, however.
29. Re:The wrong way around by Shirley+Marquez · 2013-01-24 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  If it's that old I'm guessing it was a 512MB drive, not 512GB.
This doesn't make sense to me by codemaster2b · 2013-01-23 10:14 · Score: 2

A file system is normally designed for one's own usages. A file system is entirely contained within your computer system (or in the event of a distributed file system, within computers under your control). What use then is "sneaker-netting" files between Windows, OSX, and Linux? Isn't this a network concept?

--
And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
1. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 10:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You do know what a "Sneaker Net" is dont you ? I guess not. It is using media such as SD Card or USB stick or hard drive to move files from one location to another by walking ie on your feet that are wearing sneakers, also very similar to using a "V8" net as in "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a V8 station wagon loaded with tapes / drives hurtling across the country"
2. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by perbu · 2013-01-23 10:21 · Score: 2
  
  ExFAT is designed for use on SD cards and other portable storage units that get moved around.
3. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by gaudior · 2013-01-23 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Portable hard drives and thumbdrives are often a much better option for transferring large numbers of large files than networks, even very fast ones.
4. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by jtownatpunk.net · 2013-01-23 10:25 · Score: 2
  
  "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes." It's still faster to drive terabytes of data across town than it is to "network" it unless you have an unusually fast internet connection on both ends and a reliable tube between the locations.
5. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by msheekhah · 2013-01-23 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  ahh sneakernet... god I love wifi.
  
  --
  Mark Anthony Collins
6. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by cpicon92 · 2013-01-23 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  "Sneaker-netting" refers to transferring files via USB flash drives.
7. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by Vairon · 2013-01-23 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  FAT filesystems are traditionally used on USB flash drives, SD cards and other removable storage to copy files between computers, cameras, printers and other devices which may not be attached to each other on a network. Sneakernet is a term for when you move files via removable storage between computers instead of using a network. For example, if you want to copy several gigabytes of data from one location to another and it would take several hours to complete via the Internet or only take 15 minutes to drive a USB stick to the target location.
8. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by jandrese · 2013-01-23 11:01 · Score: 2
  
  The problem with that statement is that it doesn't take into account the time spent writing the data to tape, or reading it on the other side. Once you add those factors it's a lot harder to beat a good network connection.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
9. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by steeviant · 2013-01-23 11:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ahh sneakernet... god I love wifi.
  Wifi is famously good when transferring terabyte sized files like exFAT is intended for.
10. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  I feel very old now.
11. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  I used to be a Microsoft Certified Trainer. For one class, we needed to get the class materials - about 3 GB of VM images. I ordered the instructor book, which included the VM images on DVD. At the same time, I started the download from the MS download center.
  The fedex truck with my instructor kit showed up 30 minutes before the download finally finished.
  So there's a real life example of fedex having a greater bandwidth than Microsoft.
12. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by steveg · 2013-01-23 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Well, judging from the speed of flash drives that I've used, as they get bigger they get slower.
  So WiFi might very well be viable as an alternative. It would be slow, but not necessarily slower.
  Not that we're anywhere close to terabyte flash drives. Are they proposing shipping external USB spinning drives with exFAT? Those have been coming with NTFS, or at least the last few I've gotten did. I would think that Microsoft would be happy with that -- why would they develop exFAT in the first place?
  
  --
  Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
13. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by Sloppy · 2013-01-23 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not that we're anywhere close to terabyte flash drives.
  I bet (literally, wanna?) we're within ten years.
  I sometimes carry around an 8GB one, and it recently occurred to me, "Hey, this isn't really all that much bigger than the one I had in 2004. Huh. That can't be right. Wasn't that a 4GB one? Something doesn't make sense." Then I figured out my mistake. Can you guess what it was? I had the digit right, but not the unit prefix. 9 years ago, my "cool" new flash drive was 4 megabytes. This one (which is two years old and "obsolete" in some people's opinion) is two thousand times bigger. 32 GB ones are around, if I see those, that means 64 GB ones are probably on the market too. Shit, maybe I mean to say "within five years" without the pussy ten year hedging.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
14. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by viperidaenz · 2013-01-23 12:19 · Score: 2
  
  Because NTFS isn't designed for removable media.
15. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by viperidaenz · 2013-01-23 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Back in my day, we used punch cards.
16. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by dannys42 · 2013-01-23 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  It's not quite what you meant, but the Retina Macbook Pro can be upgraded to 768 MB of flash. That's pretty close to 1TB. Though it is slightly larger than a USB stick. =P
17. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by 1729 · 2013-01-23 13:14 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Not that we're anywhere close to terabyte flash drives.
  You sure about that?
  http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/7/3847628/kingston-announces-1tb-flash-drive
  They're not cheap yet, but they're here.
18. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by Algae_94 · 2013-01-23 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  There are at least 256GB ones available here. Not exactly cheap, but we only need 4x the density to hit 1TB. Might be more like 2 years.
19. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  Or optical disk, tapes, etc. The storage device doesn't matter, it's just that you carry it around by walking in your sneakers.
20. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by griffjon · 2013-01-23 14:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Ahem. I believe Kingston demo'd one at CES this year, and you can buy a 512G flash drive today. Cheap? No, but I'll put money on being able to purchase a 1TB thumbdrive-style flash drive in 18 months, max.
  I spent the last few days re-doing my home backup system. With an equal number of OSX and Linux devices, and no windows devices, the best option for a drive that could go back and forth with minimal custom/flaky driver installs -- but still handle files over 4gb was, of all things, NTFS. I was ... well, frankly, more pissed off about that fact than a normal person should be about disk formats.
  Finally (and what I dug into this thread to say) is that Station Wagons have craptastic lag.
  
  --
  Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
21. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by GuldKalle · 2013-01-23 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Let it work to your advantage. There is no reason the tape can't be read while the writer is still writing.
  
  --
  What?
22. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by baka_toroi · 2013-01-23 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, 512 GB flash drives have been announced by Kingston already. Sure, they're expensive, but we'll have them this year. Double that is 2 or 3 years ahead at most.
23. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 14:30 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on the specifics. If I need to get 1TB of data from one side of the state to the other, there's a latency of about 8 hours or so driving. That's roughly 278Mpbs that you'd have to have in order to beat it. Although, I should probably add some time to account for reading the disk, it's still going to take massive pipes to move data more quickly than just driving. Even if you factor in the drive back, which you shouldn't, you'd still handily beat pretty much any connection you're likely to have.
  And it gets even more obscene the closer the devices are. If you're only 2 hours away, you're moving data so fast that you'd be saturating an entire gigabit network connection. At which point the reading at the end becomes quite important.
24. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 14:35 · Score: 0
  
  What if I prefer to wear sandals?
25. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 15:39 · Score: 0
  
  I have a portable 64TB fiber NAS you insensitive clod!
26. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by thogard · 2013-01-23 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  Will they make one with an esata interface?
27. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by dbIII · 2013-01-23 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  One was shown off somewhere (CES?) and is expected to go on sale mid to late 2013. It may take 2 years to hit a sane price though.
28. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by hyades1 · 2013-01-23 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the chuckle. I knew what Sneaker Net was, but I'd never heard of a V8 Net.
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
29. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by petermgreen · 2013-01-23 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  It would be nice to live in a world where I had a server on a gigabit network connection with unlimited traffic and every machine I touched also had a gigabit network connection with unlimited traffic back to that server.
  Back in the real world I don't have that luxury, end user ports on the university network are only 100 megabit and my cable connection at home is even slower so when I need to use large files on multiple computers it's faster to carry an external hard drive arround than to try and use the network.
  I guess I could carry a laptop arround and setup a network connection directly with the machine I wanted to use the file on but that is a lot bulikier and more hassle than just plugging in an external hard drive.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
30. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by petermgreen · 2013-01-23 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  It really depends on what you mean by a "good network connection", how much data you have to move and how many items of storage media (not nessacerally tape) you can fill in paralell.
  Lets assume
  You have 3TB of data
  You fill/empty your drive at 1 gigabit per second (number plucked from wikipedia and rounded)
  Your network between sites is 100 megabit per second.
  It takes 24000 seconds to put the data on the drive and another 24000 seconds to copy it off again at the destination. In comparision it would take 240000 seconds to move the data over the network.
  So that gives us 192000 seconds (over 2 days) to disconnect the drive, move it to the other site and reconnect it and beat the network transfer.
  OTOH if you have a gigabit network connection then yes it seems the fill/empty time is going to make physical media lose if you only do one drive at a time (and you actually need to fill/empty rather than just moving the drive).
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
31. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by AmiMoJo · 2013-01-24 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Wifi is famously good when transferring terabyte sized files like exFAT is intended for.
  Actually it compares quite well with the flash media that exFAT is intended for. Most flash drives are pretty slow, but even if you get 20MB/sec write and then 20MB/sec read on the other end once you factor in transport time an 802.11N connection pushing 10MB/sec would still be faster. Plus 1TB flash drives are pretty expensive, where as most people already have wifi.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
32. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by rwise2112 · 2013-01-24 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, 512 GB flash drives have been announced by Kingston already. Sure, they're expensive, but we'll have them this year. Double that is 2 or 3 years ahead at most.
  Intel's got a 600GB drive out already.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
33. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by rwise2112 · 2013-01-24 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ignore this - I was thinking SSD.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
34. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by halltk1983 · 2013-01-24 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  This is the actual purpose of bittorrent. They all get it at (roughly) the same time.
  
  --
  Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
35. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by MachineShedFred · 2013-01-24 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Because you would never need to transfer a file to something you can't hook up to your network, like the USB port on your car stereo, would you?
  You would always want to waste days transferring a terabyte or two across the Internet, instead of 30 minutes to drive it across town, right?
  Never underestimate the bandwidth of an SUV filled with hard drives hurtling down the freeway. The latency sucks, though.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
36. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by codemaster2b · 2013-01-24 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Several people, including you, have replied to my comment, but no one has addressed my question. So perhaps I wasn't understood. I know that a sneakernet implies physical transfer of data (a Boeing 747 filled with Blu-Ray discs traveling from New York to LA has a bandwidth of 245000 gbit according to Wikipedia). What what exactly is a sneakernet FILE SYSTEM. And why would you have one? I sneakernet data over thumb drives all the time. I only need a file system designed for the thumbdrive, such as NTFS.
  Actually, a thought occurs to me. The article described this sneakernet as capable of Terabyte-sized file transfers. When using a 8GB thumb drive, you must use NTFS rather than VFAT in order to transfer a 4GB + file. More importantly, a 8GB thumbdrive cannot transfer a TB file without first splitting and rejoining the file on both ends. Is this what the ExFAT file system does? Automatically handly file facturing across arbitrary media?
  
  --
  And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
37. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by MachineShedFred · 2013-01-24 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  ExFAT is a 64-bit filesystem.
  Thumb drives are not the only thing that can be used with ExFAT.
  2.5" laptop drives can be powered from USB, fit into a bubble-wrap envelope nicely, and scale to terabyte levels.
  NTFS is not useable read / write without a whole lot of fucking around on any OS not named Windows, where ExFAT may be built in (it is on Mac OS X 10.6.something and above.)
  ExFAT can be licensed by embedded electronic manufacturers that don't need the full weight of something like NTFS (Blu-ray manufacturers, car stereo makers, etc.)
  This is basically vFAT, without the file size limit.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
38. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by BitZtream · 2013-01-24 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Already do. Mind you, it was announced 15 days ago.
  1TB - http://www.usatoday.com/story/technologylive/2013/01/09/kingston-terabyte-flash-drive-ces/1820159/
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
39. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by griffjon · 2013-01-24 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps this is what you're looking for? http://informationwithoutborders.org/ is a reference implementation of a distributed, often-offline filesystem that is kinda a store-and-foward, very slow bittorrent setup. There's also FidoNet (http://www.fidonet.org/genlinfo.html) and FidoIP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/fidoip/) which are a bit more node-to-node file transfer/storage oriented.
  
  --
  Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
40. Re:This doesn't make sense to me by steveg · 2013-01-25 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be curious how fast their write times are. Because as far as the flash drives I've seen (I'm not talking about SSDs here) the larger they get the slower they write.
  That being the case, WiFi is still a viable alternative to transfer from one machine to the next, as long as you're close enough. And a wired connection is almost certainly faster.
  On the other hand, if read performance is reasonable and you need to copy to multiple devices, then a portable device with a file system that can handle large files starts to make sense. The slow writes can be amortized across multiple final destinations.
  
  --
  Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
For once it's true. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 10:15 · Score: 0

"The only way to win is not to play". If you use MS filesystem they're winning. Big operators like Google/Samsung/Sony (okay, maybe not sony) should be able to agree around some free and gratis FS for devices, and then use the courts if necessary to make sure it's easily available on Windows (I hear they have a store now).
Honestly, I'm not that concerned about FS interoperability. Mostly you just plug in your whole device or use wireless (even cameras have it nowadays), so things like being able to move memory cards to 'unknown' machines doesn't feel that important.
1. Re:For once it's true. by exomondo · 2013-01-23 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  "The only way to win is not to play". If you use MS filesystem they're winning. Big operators like Google/Samsung/Sony (okay, maybe not sony) should be able to agree around some free and gratis FS for devices, and then use the courts if necessary to make sure it's easily available on Windows (I hear they have a store now).
  What's wrong with ext2/3/4?
2. Re:For once it's true. by TheReaperD · 2013-01-23 10:44 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  One word: Windows
  
  --
  "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
3. Re:For once it's true. by SuricouRaven · 2013-01-23 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  The courts do not have that power. Maybe - maybe - in a full antitrust case, but the last time MS was involved in one of those... well, United States v Microsoft was filed in 1998, and concluded in 2002. Four years, and it only finished because MS settled it on terms quite favorable to themselves. Legislative action could do it, but good luck out-lobbying microsoft, not to mention all the economic conservatives screaming about how the commies are trying to steal the hard work of a good American company.
4. Re:For once it's true. by Githaron · 2013-01-23 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Those are not supported by Microsoft Windows right out of the box so that are not readily suitable for use in flash drives and SD cards.
5. Re:For once it's true. by grumbel · 2013-01-23 10:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Microsoft has already won by having ExtFAT part of the SDXC spec, so every big SD card comes with it. The only thing the Open Source world can do is damage control by implementing it and thus staying useful.
6. Re:For once it's true. by exomondo · 2013-01-23 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  One word: Windows
  ext is open, you can implement it on Windows (in fact it's already been done).
7. Re:For once it's true. by kangasloth · 2013-01-23 11:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Ext2/3/4 sucks as an interchange format. In short, it does too much. Any filesystem sufficiently complex to support real workloads is going to impose an excessive implementation burden for sneakernet. The bizarre thing is that we have a minimalist filesystem that can represent the file model with fidelity (large files, unicode names, etc) that is implemented in every modern OS: UDF. If it can read DVDs, it can read UDF and every general purpose OS released in the last decade can write to the appropriate version, 2.01. Not for nothing is it called the Universal Disk Format.
  The real mystery is how did Microsoft con an industry into paying for such a lousy alternative to UDF. SDXC requires exFAT, so every new camera and anything else that hopes to read these high capacity sdcards has to cope with licensing requirements. WTF.
8. Re:For once it's true. by exomondo · 2013-01-23 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Those are not supported by Microsoft Windows right out of the box so that are not readily suitable for use in flash drives and SD cards.
  A lot of devices are not supported by Microsoft Windows right out of the box, that's hardly causing problems, that's just an excuse.
9. Re:For once it's true. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  You don't understand. He wants to force Microsoft to officially support ext.
10. Re:For once it's true. by exomondo · 2013-01-23 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Ext2/3/4 sucks as an interchange format. In short, it does too much. Any filesystem sufficiently complex to support real workloads is going to impose an excessive implementation burden for sneakernet.
  Format disk, use as normal. Hardly an excessive burden. But yes UDF works just as easily.
11. Re:For once it's true. by TheReaperD · 2013-01-23 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, you'd have to adjust the thermostat in hell first.
  
  --
  "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
12. Re:For once it's true. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure the developers aren't doing it for "damage control". They're doing it because they enjoy it.
13. Re:For once it's true. by TheReaperD · 2013-01-23 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Though there are several solutions, none of them are ideal. When you're running Windows 7 x64, it gets even more hairy. Here's one discussion thread about the problem and options. So, I'd be unwilling to call it "already been done." The problem is that the Windows file system "API" is less than functional and a pain in the ass under the best of circumstances. From what I have read, the universal "best solution" is to boot from a Linux (any) LiveCD if you want to work with ext# partitions.
  
  --
  "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
14. Re:For once it's true. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  That's a lot of grumble from a grumbel.
15. Re:For once it's true. by exomondo · 2013-01-23 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Explore2fs works fine, doesn't support ext4 but if that's your thing then the software is under GPL so open source to the rescue.
16. Re:For once it's true. by Githaron · 2013-01-23 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the 4GB file size limit of FAT32 never causes problems? Microsoft, Apple, the Linux community, and possibly Google really should come together and create a new, open, and license-free file system spec that they all agree to support in their respective operating systems. They could come together every ten years or so to create a new spec. Of course, Microsoft wouldn't want to do that. They make too much money through threatening companies that make their own implementation of one of Microsoft's proprietary file systems.
17. Re:For once it's true. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  Every time I plug my issued Microsoft keyboard into my Windows 7 laptop I am unable to use it until it goes online and re-gets the drivers for it. So if I unplug it, go to a meeting, come back and plug it back in a different port, I will not be able to log back to my session.
18. Re:For once it's true. by exomondo · 2013-01-23 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the 4GB file size limit of FAT32 never causes problems?
  No, i mean A lot of devices are not supported by Microsoft Windows right out of the box, that's hardly causing problems. You really think people only use things that are supported by Windows out of the box?
19. Re:For once it's true. by TheReaperD · 2013-01-23 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Explore2fs supports read-only and does not have Windows Vista/7/8 support. My statement still stands.
  I can write code but, I'm not a programmer so any attempt I make to work on it will just make things worse.
  
  --
  "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
20. Re:For once it's true. by exomondo · 2013-01-23 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  Explore2fs supports read-only and does not have Windows Vista/7/8 support.
  Since you won't bother to read your own link I'll quote it for you here:
  Works great for me in Windows 7 x64. Provides decent transfer speed and apparently supports both read and write ability. Ignores permissions so you can get access to every file on the partition.
  In any case it's not that it can't be done, it's that nobody wants it, people just write utilities that are just enough for what they need, if you cobble the functionality together you have a workable solution. It's all open so either learn to code, pay somebody to build it for you or forget it altogether and pay for one of the existing exFAT proprietary solutions, all the options are there.
21. Re:For once it's true. by Agent+ME · 2013-01-23 13:37 · Score: 2
  
  It's annoying using a file system with file ownership on a flash drive, because chances are the computer I plug the flash drive into has an entirely different set of user IDs that don't match up to the flash drive's files' ownerships. I wish there was an easy way to mount an ext filesystem with all of the files owned by a specific user id (such as the id of the active desktop user when I plug in the flash drive). I wouldn't be surprised if there already is a way, but it should be do-able via the UI and not require root access.
22. Re:For once it's true. by tepples · 2013-01-23 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of devices are not supported by Microsoft Windows right out of the box, that's hardly causing problems, that's just an excuse.
  This, unlike the case you're thinking of, does cause problems. People normally use a USB flash drive to copy the driver for one of these "devices [that] are not supported by Microsoft Windows right out of the box" from the computer with the fast Internet connection to the computer in another building with the printer, scanner, or other similar peripheral. But when the flash drive itself is the peripheral, it creates a chicken-and-egg situation. Or do you believe that anybody who doesn't carry two flash drives, one large one to store the data and one small one to store the driver for the large one, is just making excuses?
23. Re:For once it's true. by exomondo · 2013-01-23 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  If that's your problem then a tiny partition with a utility or driver would work fine.
24. Re:For once it's true. by dryeo · 2013-01-23 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Crappy xttrs support (4kbs if enabled)
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
25. Re:For once it's true. by ssam · 2013-01-24 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  +1
  if you plug a drive into another computer you should have no expectation that the computer will respect the permissions, so what is the point of having them. it should be possible to make a udev rule that 777s any external disk when you mount it. or hack ext4 to ignore permissions on external drives.
26. Re:For once it's true. by ikaruga · 2013-01-24 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but only tech savy people will install the necessary drivers. Most likely your ext4 formated USB drive will only work with the SOME machines you administrate(things that you can't customize the OS/firmware such as game consoles, external HDD compatible TVs, several professional measurement instruments are some of the devices I use that have only some for of FAT or NTFS support). Good luck in the real world. I HATE microsoft because of that. Using the "monopoly" on the OS to basically dictate which file systems hardware makers all over the world will use is, IMO, as bad as having trying to force everybody in to developing only for IE6 back in the 90s. No, scratch that, it's actually worse because you have to pay patents. And virtually nobody does anything about it.
27. Re:For once it's true. by TheReaperD · 2013-01-24 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I went one link deeper and didn't specify. I linked to the site I did as it had more options if people wanted to investigate.
  According to the Explore2fs official website, the current version only supports read-only and only up to Windows XP. There is a beta of version 2 (v0.7) that has "Supported by all versions of Windows (Vista is still Work In Progress)" listed. I'm not saying you can't make it work or that it won't work in many scenarios. But, it's not ready for prime time in a production environment.
  
  --
  "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
28. Re:For once it's true. by exomondo · 2013-01-24 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  But it is doable, everything is open and even many of the utilities (like Explore2fs) are open source so there's even easy starting points. Really the only thing stopping it is the fact that nobody uses it, which is reasonable given that 98%+ of people use Windows or OSX (which support exFAT), then of the remaining 2% there are at least 2 proprietary licensed exFAT solutions and now a free and open one, how many people need a solution to this problem and don't fit into any of those categories? Probably none, so it's not surprising that the ext solution hasn't gained traction, there's no technical barriers, it's not even particularly difficult, it's just pretty pointless given there is no audience for it.
29. Re:For once it's true. by exomondo · 2013-01-24 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but only tech savy people will install the necessary drivers.
  And 98%+ of people will be using exFAT on Windows or OSX, of the remaining needing the ext solution. It could be implemented in the same way that drivers are done for other peripherals, it could even be automatically included on a small partition on the device or something like that, this isn't a problem of technical feasibility, it's that nobody would ever use it, they'll just use exFAT or alternatively FAT32 (and on FAT32 if you have >4GB files you just split them with an archiver).
exFAT is already on OS X by BLToday · 2013-01-23 10:16 · Score: 4, Informative

As far as I know it's part of OS X since Snow Leopard. But I could totally use the Linux support.
Is it legal to use? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 10:28 · Score: 0

Am I allowed to use this implementation?
They won't sue yet. by SuricouRaven · 2013-01-23 10:48 · Score: 2

First they'll give enough time for it to get established to the point of being considered an essential for any functional desktop.
*Then* they'll start suing.
1. Re:They won't sue yet. by Gadget_Guy · 2013-01-23 11:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Based on their previous actions, they will allow the use of this project in distros but will sue any commercial implementation that uses it. So they haven't sued Ubuntu or Mint, but have sued TomTom.
2. Re:They won't sue yet. by c0lo · 2013-01-23 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  *Then* they'll start suing.
  Suing who?
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
3. Re:They won't sue yet. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  It's already there; check the SDXC specification. You want to support SD cards larger than 32 GB? You need to support exfat.
4. Re:They won't sue yet. by UltraZelda64 · 2013-01-23 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously anyone who makes money off their shitty file system.
5. Re:They won't sue yet. by c0lo · 2013-01-23 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm safe then.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
6. Re:They won't sue yet. by UltraZelda64 · 2013-01-23 15:09 · Score: 2
  
  Me too, because I don't plan on touching any FAT file systems with a ten foot pole if I can help it. It's bad enough portable systems like cameras and phones often require it; I get my data off of those systems ASAP and on a more sane file system, first chance I get. I have already tried externally formatting my Android phone's SD card as ext2 with no success... it would be nice if ext2 and UFS were supported by these things.
  Android... the Linux that can't even support its own native file system.
DKMS? by r1348 · 2013-01-23 10:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

As the name clearly states, this is a FUSE implementation of exFAT, i.e. userspace. In which case DKMS is as useful as a fork for soup.
So not only we get the news two days after Phoronix [1], but the poster has no idea on what he's talking about.
[1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI3OTQ
1. Re:DKMS? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Besides which, the code is GPL 3 or later and so is entirely incompatible with the kernel.
2. Re:DKMS? by Titus+Andronicus · 2013-01-23 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  For brevity, I didn't make clear the reasons for a DKMS version of the software (i.e. a port) in the original post. They are, in no particular order: (1) performance, due to fewer context switches, and (2) avoiding the licensing incompatibility with mainline.
3. Re:DKMS? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-23 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Unless the copyright owners re-license it.
4. Re:DKMS? by tepples · 2013-01-23 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck getting all copyright owners of a project that does not use copyright assignments to agree to relicense a work.
Does patent beat copyright? by c0lo · 2013-01-23 11:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

Am I allowed to use this implementation?
Depends on what you want to use for: as a form of expression, you should be able to. Use the binary form to read/write, all depends on the MS patents and whether or not MS grants you a license.

Will Microsoft litigate fuse-exfat's developers and users into patent oblivion?
Regarding developers: the software is posted as source code with instructions on how to install them from source. Being source code, is a form of expression, protected by copyright. As such, can a commercial entity try to block the dissemination of the "speech" that the source code constitutes?
Mind you, any existing patents should not play any role into it: after all a patent is a public disclosure of methods/constructs that constitute the invention (the text of the patent is not copyrighted), so the source code should not be anything but an alternative form of expression of the same.
Regarding users: yes, using the compiled binaries would violate the temporary monopoly granted by any existing patents. However, I can't imagine any corporations starting to track which hobbyist home users:
1. downloaded the source code - should not be, per se, illegal - the copyleft license allows you to do it and the patent should not trump the copyright.
2. for each of them, ask for a discovery to see if that source code has been compiled - again, compilation should not be illegal, I'm obtaining a derivative form of expression and the GPL copyright license allows me to do it
3. use the binary - this is the only step that would violate the patent

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
1. Re:Does patent beat copyright? by DaHat · 2013-01-23 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Being source code, is a form of expression, protected by copyright. As such, can a commercial entity try to block the dissemination of the "speech" that the source code constitutes?
  Yes... because this has never happend before *rolls eyes*
  
  --
  Help Brendan pay off his student loans
2. Re:Does patent beat copyright? by c0lo · 2013-01-23 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Being source code, is a form of expression, protected by copyright. As such, can a commercial entity try to block the dissemination of the "speech" that the source code constitutes?
  Yes... because this has never happend before *rolls eyes*
  Was this as a result a law or a court decision?
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
3. Re:Does patent beat copyright? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-23 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  So by your logic, that copyright trumps patents and the use of the system is the violation I can sell/import anything I want that is covered by a patent. It's not me who is violating anything. Its the individuals who purchase and use it.
  Oh wait, that's completely wrong.
  I can however, do what ever I want with anything covered by a software patent in a country that doesn't enforce them. As long I don't get Kim DotCom'd by the FBI.
4. Re:Does patent beat copyright? by c0lo · 2013-01-23 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  To the mods that used +Informative and all the readers: my apologies, I should have started with IANAL. Do NOT take the above as a reality, it is my personal opinion/assessment of the situation.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
5. Re:Does patent beat copyright? by c0lo · 2013-01-23 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  So by your logic, that copyright trumps patents and the use of the system is the violation I can sell/import anything I want that is covered by a patent.
  Not anything, but anything that is a form of expression.
  Chances are you are too young to remember/know about "encryption as a weapon" brouhaha approx 18-22 years ago (or too old and already forgot about it).
  Anyway, as a memory refresh: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that software source code was speech protected by the First Amendment and that the government's regulations preventing its publication were unconstitutional
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
6. Re:Does patent beat copyright? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-23 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  So if I happen to write machine code myself, that machine code is protected free speech too.
7. Re:Does patent beat copyright? by c0lo · 2013-01-23 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  So if I happen to write machine code myself, that machine code is protected free speech too.
  As long as it's source code, yes. Shouldn't matter if the source code is binary.
  If you think it's crazy, don't blame me: IP validly stands for "Internet Protocol" and "Imaginary property".
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
8. Re:Does patent beat copyright? by aaron552 · 2013-01-23 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. The violation would occur when you execute the code in order to read or write from an exFAT partition.
  
  --
  I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
9. Re:Does patent beat copyright? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-24 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  So if I write it myself its source code and its OK. So compiling it and transforming a work into a different format removes the protections of copyright? That's a little strange, since re-encoding a DVD will get you sued.
10. Re:Does patent beat copyright? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-24 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  So how can Apple stop Samsung importing phones that violate patents, when its the users who violate them once they use the device?
11. Re:Does patent beat copyright? by c0lo · 2013-01-24 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  So if I write it myself its source code and its OK. So compiling it and transforming a work into a different format removes the protections of copyright?
  No it doesn't remove the protection of copyright: it's a derivative work starting from the original source code. The legality of compilation result will be governed by the license you have for the source code.
  
  That's a little strange, since re-encoding a DVD will get you sued.
  Please provide details on what exactly is your point, 'cause I lost you.
  My initial position: if you write a source code that uses a patent, the copyright law should trump the patent law in regards to the distribution of the source code.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
12. Re:Does patent beat copyright? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-27 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Samsung wrote the software on their phones, the code they use that they didn't write is licensed to allow them to distribute it. They got block from import. Apple wrote their software too, they also got taken to court over patent issues.
  They're distributing derivative works of their own code or code they're licensed to use. I don't see how that is different than distributing the source code.
13. Re:Does patent beat copyright? by c0lo · 2013-01-27 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Samsung wrote the software on their phones, the code they use that they didn't write is licensed to allow them to distribute it. They got block from import. Apple wrote their software too, they also got taken to court over patent issues.
  They're distributing derivative works of their own code or code they're licensed to use. I don't see how that is different than distributing the source code.
  The phones are not a mean to distribute the code (for which their are sued) as an "form of expression" - the code is integral part of the phone and the phone uses it.
  If they'd distribute the code by download or burnt on a CD or whatever way the code is not used by phone and the users would load it, then they wouldn't be sued for breach of the patents (but the users loading/executing it would be liable).
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
no need to litigate by stenvar · 2013-01-23 11:39 · Score: 1

The fact that this isn't in the kernel and that device manufacturers can't ship it remains a serious problem for Linux.
Not if the network is cost prohibitive by tepples · 2013-01-23 14:40 · Score: 1

What use then is "sneaker-netting" files between Windows, OSX, and Linux? Isn't this a network concept?
Not if the network is cost prohibitive. Good luck transferring 10-gigabyte files over cellular.
1. Re:Not if the network is cost prohibitive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 18:07 · Score: 0
  
  My brother did this when he had unlimited 4G data from Sprint and downloaded a ~16GB Steam game over it, didn't take very long either.
Chicken and egg by tepples · 2013-01-23 14:42 · Score: 1

ext is open, you can implement it on Windows (in fact it's already been done).
So if I have a USB flash drive formatted in ext, how do I load the ext driver onto an Internet-disconnected PC running Windows so that I can use the flash drive with that computer?
1. Re:Chicken and egg by exomondo · 2013-01-23 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  You know they have these things called 'partitions', you should google it.
2. Re:Chicken and egg by tepples · 2013-01-23 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  I've read that if a drive is "removable", Windows refuses to read partitions past the first.
3. Re:Chicken and egg by exomondo · 2013-01-23 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  I've read that if a drive is "removable", Windows refuses to read partitions past the first.
  So flip the removable bit. Or use FAT32 instead.
4. Re:Chicken and egg by cbhacking · 2013-01-24 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  I've partitioned removable HDDs before (attached via USB), and Windows (Vista and up, at least; never tested XP) can access all the partitions. It's possible on flashdrives as well, though they might not all automatically mount... I'll have to test some more to see what happens there.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
If SD causes you to stumble, cut it off. by tepples · 2013-01-23 14:54 · Score: 1

You want to support SD cards larger than 32 GB?
No, not at least until you can prove it's absolutely necessary. Why can't a future device design just drop support for SD cards and use UDF or Ext formatted USB flash drives instead? As a widely respected first-century teacher might have put it: "If [SD support] causes you to stumble, cut it off."--Mark 9:43.
1. Re:If SD causes you to stumble, cut it off. by SuricouRaven · 2013-01-23 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  Size. MicroSD is really the only option on phones and some other portable devices. Many tablets now are so thin there isn't even room for a USB port.
2. Re:If SD causes you to stumble, cut it off. by tepples · 2013-01-24 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  MicroSD is really the only option on phones and some other portable devices.
  
  Most of these portable devices have a receptacle that supports acting as a USB host (USB OTG Micro-AB, iPod dock, or Lightning), and many have already dropped the microSD slot. Connect your USB storage device to the device through an appropriate adapter cable.
  
  Many tablets now are so thin there isn't even room for a USB port.
  Most of these are also too thin for microSD, such as every iTrinket since the first iPhone. If they don't have a USB port, then how do they charge?
Flipping the removable bit by tepples · 2013-01-23 15:50 · Score: 1

So flip the removable bit.
I thought removability was part of the USB device controller, not something stored in the file system, and there was no standard way to "flip the removable bit" that works across brands of flash drive. This answer confirms my suspicion. Or were you recommending that people investigate which USB flash drive brands support end-user control of the removable bit before buying the drive in the first place?

Or use FAT32 instead.
Windows won't format FAT32 bigger than 32 GB, and surpassing the 32 GB limit is SDXC's reason for existence. As I understand it, the only technical difference between SDHC and SDXC is the file system that a device is required to support.
1. Re:Flipping the removable bit by exomondo · 2013-01-23 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  Or were you recommending that people investigate which USB flash drive brands support end-user control of the removable bit before buying the drive in the first place?
  If you're in the ridiculously bizarre and quite frankly obsolete situation you're describing above, yes.
  
  Windows won't format FAT32 bigger than 32 GB
  So use the DOS format utility...christ do you need to be hand-held through everything, google isn't that difficult to use if you don't already know these things.
2. Re:Flipping the removable bit by tepples · 2013-01-23 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  If you're in the ridiculously bizarre and quite frankly obsolete situation you're describing above
  I don't see how it's obsolete to end up using a computer that has no easy access to the Internet, or a computer on which one is not permitted to install software that requires administrative privileges. Or do you mean USB mass storage itself is obsolete, that people should be carrying devices that implement MTP instead of mass storage and storing data on those?
  
  christ do you need to be hand-held through everything
  I don't, but the median end user does, and mass-produced consumer products are made for the median end user, not Slashdot users.
  
  google isn't that difficult to use if you don't already know these things.
  Google is difficult to use if you don't know which keywords to use. I tried Google partition usb flash drive and the consensus among top results was that it wouldn't work in Windows, not that end users were recommended to try flipping their flash drives' removable bits.
3. Re:Flipping the removable bit by exomondo · 2013-01-23 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see how it's obsolete to end up using a computer that has no easy access to the Internet, or a computer on which one is not permitted to install software that requires administrative privileges.
  And has no networking, and you don't want to use FAT32 and you're using ext and ext drivers aren't installed and an ext-supporting userland application isn't installed and you don't have a usb stick formatted with a compatible filesystem with which to use such a utility...etc...etc...yes obsolete.
  
  I don't, but the median end user does
  The median end user isn't transferring between non-exFAT supporting systems like Linux and non-internet connected Windows machines that they need to print/scan from either. If you're in that bizarre situation (I can understand such a situation in a high security environment) without any IT department then your problem isn't USB file systems.
  
  I tried Google partition usb flash drive
  Well that explains why your complaint was 'Windows won't format FAT32 bigger than 32 GB'.
4. Re:Flipping the removable bit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-24 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  The median end user isn't transferring between non-exFAT supporting systems like Linux and non-internet connected Windows machines that they need to print/scan from either
  The median user certainly is transferring files between their cameras/phones/gadgets and their Windows machines.
  You probably forgot, but this thread started with the premise of "Big operators like Google/Samsung/Sony" saying no to the exFAT tax and using their own format.
  Of course, as have been pointed out, they then couldn't advertise themselves as SDXC compatible, so Microsoft has quite the racket going.
Not completely useless by davidwr · 2013-01-23 16:07 · Score: 1

I can think of two uses off the bat for kernel-level NTFS overwrite-existing-file support:
* Use an existing fixed-size pagefile.sys as a Linux swap file on a dual-boot machine. Just be sure the system isn't hibernated before trying this trick. I don't think I want to take the performance hit of doing this in user-space.
* File-blanker. OK, this can be done in userspace, but I can contrive of oddball situations where it might be better to do it in kernel space.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
A few other details by davidwr · 2013-01-23 16:12 · Score: 1

* Reasonable file- and path-size limits that won't break common usage scenarios.
* Support for common meta-data that everyone expects to be there, like date-stamps.
* The speed that you would expect from a simple file system (#2 above).

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
NTFS on ReactOS? by unixisc · 2013-01-23 22:01 · Score: 1

This reverse-engineered NTFS - even if it has no space in Linux, can it be used in ReactOS, which is not using NTFS due to avoiding violating MS patents there? Actually better - if they can produce a reverse engineered 64-bit equivalent of NTFS, name it something else and make it the native file system of ReactOS?
UDF, MTP, NAS by tepples · 2013-01-24 02:38 · Score: 1

so when I need to use large files on multiple computers it's faster to carry an external hard drive arround than to try and use the network.
And that external hard drive can be formatted UDF, as long as you don't need to write to the drive from a Windows XP machine.

I guess I could carry a laptop arround and setup a network connection directly with the machine I wanted to use the file on but that is a lot bulikier and more hassle than just plugging in an external hard drive.
That or an external hard drive in a NAS enclosure, so that any computer that speaks FTP or SMB can read and write its files. Or an external hard drive in a USB enclosure that speaks MTP, so that any computer that speaks MTP (such as any Windows PC or any Mac with the MTP class driver) can read and write its files. The difference is that both NAS and MTP work on the level of files, unlike Mass Storage that works on the level of disk blocks, and the host OS need not be aware that the enclosure is using Ext behind the scenes.