exFAT has support for ACLs. Imagine the madness when *those* get screwed up (Especially when Vista SP1 doesn't have a GUI to manipulate them!).:D
Things *could* get messy with permissions. You could, however, write your embedded FS driver so that it ignored FS permissions and made files that it processed readable and writeable by all. (It is probably running as root, after all.) [It seems that some (all?) ext2/3 drivers for Windows ignore permissions on ext2/3 volumes.]
I'm rather unqualified to comment on an issue like filesystem complexity, so I can't address that part of your claims. If you're qualified to comment, would you kindly direct me to some documents that could give me a feel for the complexity of implementing an exFAT driver?
You can still see a remnant of the close AMD relationship on 64-bit Windows by opening a shell and typing "echo %processor_architecture%". Hint: it doesn't say X64.
IIRC, uname -m on a "x64" linux machine says "amd64". I think that the OS vendors are calling it that 'cause AMD was first to market, not cause they were all up in each other's private members.
You can't currently do that with extFAT on any version of Windows older than Vista SP1. (With the exception of CE 6.) What's your point?
MSFT could have licensed *any* *number* of suitable filesystems. They could have freely used any number of BSD implementations of said filesystems and quickly had *wide* compatibility with existing systems. Rather, they chose to roll yet another FS that they can control completely.:/
Aye. Like the other posters in this thread have said: Why hasn't your company ensured that that this critical segment of your audience is coming with you through the DTV switch? *Every* OTA station in my area broadcasts PSA's about the switch just about every hour they're broadcasting. Why hasn't yours?
If you *have* been, then what, exactly are you saying here? Are you saying that your core advertising demographic was too lazy to get a coupon and grab a converter? Too stupid? Too poor? (If they're too poor for to afford a $60 box, who on earth is advertising to them? Fast food chains? Temp agencies?) Or are you saying that your advertisers see a way to twist the facts so they stop paying you money?
They *really* need to use an existing FS that has a driver in one of the BSDs. 'Twould be really nice if the EU would turn up the heat on MSFT until MSFT stops with this exFAT bullshit.
There are plenty of available drivers. If MSFT wanted to roll their own, they could base their ext2 driver off of the one of the ones in one of the BSDs. Why the fuck is MSFT reinventing the wheel again?:(
You *really* shouldn't need a firewall, either. Correctly written programs should not accept connections from unwanted hosts. We *really* need to try harder when writing networked apps.
*nods* Marmoute makes a good point. If Joe Sixpack is of a participatory bent and does more than just email, he's gonna have to jump through hoops (even if it is "just" enabling uPnP) to do what he wants.
With IPv6, you *could* have routing devices that provide an OOB firewall setup that's identical to the one that NAT "provides". You would have the option of "DMZing" more than one PC, though. As more Joe Sixpacks start participating in the Internet, the demand for such a feature will grow.
Yeah. Gaining access to someone's OpenID account would -for many people- mean gaining access to someone's email account. Once you have access to someone's email account, all bets are off.:D
If you use OpenID with a delegate, you're dependent on your own web server working,
If our ISPs were dedicated to providing us *decent* Internet connections, we'd *never* have to worry about whether or not our web server was working... it'd be co-located in our house!
Sweet! Thanks for coming back with this info. What do you mean when you say "every kernel change"? Do you mean every minor revision? Every patch revision? (ie: 2.6.5-rXX) Every security update? Were you only using Ubuntu-packaged kernels?
I'm dealing with my own problems here... sometime after 2.6.16 the cifs module started oopsing whenever you umount cifs shares after mounting a share in two locations with two different sets of credentials. (This really, really sucks, btw.)
Anyway, once I get that done, I'll hopefully have time to see what went wrong with some of those drivers that you mentioned./me hopes to do some kernel development in the future.
Support resources (forums, man pages, etc) that assume that you want to spend a few weeks learning a whole new language just to be able to do something that should be simple like access a file on your Windows' C: drive.
Slashdot Mirror
exFAT has support for ACLs. Imagine the madness when *those* get screwed up (Especially when Vista SP1 doesn't have a GUI to manipulate them!). :D
Things *could* get messy with permissions. You could, however, write your embedded FS driver so that it ignored FS permissions and made files that it processed readable and writeable by all. (It is probably running as root, after all.)
[It seems that some (all?) ext2/3 drivers for Windows ignore permissions on ext2/3 volumes.]
WRT ext4: I wonder if you could disable journaling...
A quick search reveals this conversation by Ted Tso.
https://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-ext4/2008/10/7/3532804
This post implies that an ext4 FS can run without a journal.
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:eivENzNpGUwJ:lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/7/378+site:lkml.org+%22allow-ext4-to-run-without-a-journal%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
I'm rather unqualified to comment on an issue like filesystem complexity, so I can't address that part of your claims. If you're qualified to comment, would you kindly direct me to some documents that could give me a feel for the complexity of implementing an exFAT driver?
Cheers!
You can still see a remnant of the close AMD relationship on 64-bit Windows by opening a shell and typing "echo %processor_architecture%". Hint: it doesn't say X64.
IIRC, uname -m on a "x64" linux machine says "amd64". I think that the OS vendors are calling it that 'cause AMD was first to market, not cause they were all up in each other's private members.
*points to my ext3 volume with 10% of its files as "non-contiguous"*
(It became completely full one day. While deleting some files, I kicked off another process to start filling it back up. Bam! Extra fragmentation!)
You can't currently do that with extFAT on any version of Windows older than Vista SP1. (With the exception of CE 6.) What's your point?
MSFT could have licensed *any* *number* of suitable filesystems. They could have freely used any number of BSD implementations of said filesystems and quickly had *wide* compatibility with existing systems. Rather, they chose to roll yet another FS that they can control completely. :/
Are ext2's goals completely different from those of exFAT?
How about ext4 vs exFAT?
ext3cow and btrfs are also COW filesystems.
Aye. Like the other posters in this thread have said: Why hasn't your company ensured that that this critical segment of your audience is coming with you through the DTV switch?
*Every* OTA station in my area broadcasts PSA's about the switch just about every hour they're broadcasting. Why hasn't yours?
If you *have* been, then what, exactly are you saying here? Are you saying that your core advertising demographic was too lazy to get a coupon and grab a converter? Too stupid? Too poor? (If they're too poor for to afford a $60 box, who on earth is advertising to them? Fast food chains? Temp agencies?) Or are you saying that your advertisers see a way to twist the facts so they stop paying you money?
Or, instead of being consumed by NIH syndrome, they could find some nice BSD-licensed FS to use.
They *really* need to use an existing FS that has a driver in one of the BSDs. 'Twould be really nice if the EU would turn up the heat on MSFT until MSFT stops with this exFAT bullshit.
Ext2.
There are plenty of available drivers. :(
If MSFT wanted to roll their own, they could base their ext2 driver off of the one of the ones in one of the BSDs. Why the fuck is MSFT reinventing the wheel again?
You *really* shouldn't need a firewall, either. Correctly written programs should not accept connections from unwanted hosts. We *really* need to try harder when writing networked apps.
*nods* Marmoute makes a good point. If Joe Sixpack is of a participatory bent and does more than just email, he's gonna have to jump through hoops (even if it is "just" enabling uPnP) to do what he wants.
With IPv6, you *could* have routing devices that provide an OOB firewall setup that's identical to the one that NAT "provides". You would have the option of "DMZing" more than one PC, though. As more Joe Sixpacks start participating in the Internet, the demand for such a feature will grow.
Why not grab a .dyndns.org domain?
So, the increased length of v6 addresses doesn't matter to you? Or if it did, you'd start adding entries to your hosts file?
Though DNA addresses could be the future!
IDK... If you think that IPv6 addresses are long...
it doesn't offer any direct benefit to those who need to deploy it.
Oh but surely those who need to deploy it will see the benefits! ;)
(Yes, I know what you meant.)
If you have to access the box from elsewhere in the building its via the numeric address only.
That's a pity. They might want to fix that sometime in the future. ;)
XD
*imaginary up-mod!*
slimjim8094
By that you mean client-2-3 as your default lookup zone is city.state.example.com.
If your site is *not* configured in this manner, your sysadmin needs to be fired.
Yeah. Gaining access to someone's OpenID account would -for many people- mean gaining access to someone's email account. Once you have access to someone's email account, all bets are off. :D
If you use OpenID with a delegate, you're dependent on your own web server working,
If our ISPs were dedicated to providing us *decent* Internet connections, we'd *never* have to worry about whether or not our web server was working... it'd be co-located in our house!
Noobs.
If I played that damn game, I'd run windowed instances in multiple VMs. ;)
Sweet! Thanks for coming back with this info. What do you mean when you say "every kernel change"? Do you mean every minor revision? Every patch revision? (ie: 2.6.5-rXX) Every security update? Were you only using Ubuntu-packaged kernels?
I'm dealing with my own problems here... sometime after 2.6.16 the cifs module started oopsing whenever you umount cifs shares after mounting a share in two locations with two different sets of credentials. (This really, really sucks, btw.)
Anyway, once I get that done, I'll hopefully have time to see what went wrong with some of those drivers that you mentioned. /me hopes to do some kernel development in the future.
Support resources (forums, man pages, etc) that assume that you want to spend a few weeks learning a whole new language just to be able to do something that should be simple like access a file on your Windows' C: drive.
Cite?
6. Asking you nicely in a closed room with no cameras laced with references to a one way trip to Cuba.
Film at 11:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB_Hl4bcQNc