Yes they do. The bootload'ers used for booting Linux are signed by Microsoft.
Wrong, they are signed by Verisign with Microsoft's key, that's the whole point, so that motherboards with only Microsoft's key installed can boot into other signed OSes. If Microsoft revokes that key then they revoke the ability to boot their own OS.
Perhaps the fear is that if the patch is not merged, Microsoft will revoke the certificates that have been used to sign mainstream GNU/Linux distributions.
Microsoft doesn't control the certificates, VeriSign does, Microsoft can't just 'revoke' certificates and stop SecureBoot from loading them, they don't control any of that.
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).
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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 I don't understand is who all these people are that will be 'forking it and improving it all the time', who the fuck is going to be forking this project? And what for? I don't see people volunteering to improve this all the time over the next 4 years.
No, this strategy is based on the newer products (windows 8, windows phone 8 and windows RT) not the older 7 products, the core is the same Windows kernel and they all have the WinRT application platform, which makes sense.
Windows 8 has been out for less than 3 months. A bit early to calling it a failure?
Did I do that? I don't think I did.
At which point Apple will announce a compatibility layer to run all one's favourite iPad apps inside OS X at WWDC 2014, along with the first macbook air with a detachable keyboard. At which point developers will marvel at the lower cost of entry - in being able to run Xcode on the same device you're targetting.
That really doesn't sound like an Apple thing to do, although given that Jobs has passed and they have resurrected a couple of things he publicly panned (larger screen because 3.5" is the perfect screen size, 7" tablets are pointless) perhaps you're right.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes they do. The bootload'ers used for booting Linux are signed by Microsoft.
Wrong, they are signed by Verisign with Microsoft's key, that's the whole point, so that motherboards with only Microsoft's key installed can boot into other signed OSes. If Microsoft revokes that key then they revoke the ability to boot their own OS.
If you give Microsoft the power to control what software will and won't run, then they will use it, sooner or later. It's a fscking retarded idea.
And how exactly would one do that? You mean every motherboard manufacturer is going to build every one of their products locked to Windows 8?
Perhaps the fear is that if the patch is not merged, Microsoft will revoke the certificates that have been used to sign mainstream GNU/Linux distributions.
Microsoft doesn't control the certificates, VeriSign does, Microsoft can't just 'revoke' certificates and stop SecureBoot from loading them, they don't control any of that.
You kind of need a line of sight to the sun for the strategy mentioned above to work.
And if - like in the GP's post - the sun is setting at 4:30 you shouldn't have that problem.
And what would your clever solution do for people living at high enough latitudes that it isn't an option?
The ability to sit near a window or to go outside is relative to latitude?
All I could think reading this news was "Do they want to get smashed flat?".
You really think the US can manage another conflict? One that actually does involve WMDs?
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).
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.
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'.
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.
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.
You know they have these things called 'partitions', you should google it.
If that's your problem then a tiny partition with a utility or driver would work fine.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
One word: Windows
ext is open, you can implement it on Windows (in fact it's already been done).
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.
"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?
What I don't understand is who all these people are that will be 'forking it and improving it all the time', who the fuck is going to be forking this project? And what for? I don't see people volunteering to improve this all the time over the next 4 years.
No, this strategy is based on the newer products (windows 8, windows phone 8 and windows RT) not the older 7 products, the core is the same Windows kernel and they all have the WinRT application platform, which makes sense.
Windows 8 has been out for less than 3 months. A bit early to calling it a failure?
Did I do that? I don't think I did.
At which point Apple will announce a compatibility layer to run all one's favourite iPad apps inside OS X at WWDC 2014, along with the first macbook air with a detachable keyboard. At which point developers will marvel at the lower cost of entry - in being able to run Xcode on the same device you're targetting.
That really doesn't sound like an Apple thing to do, although given that Jobs has passed and they have resurrected a couple of things he publicly panned (larger screen because 3.5" is the perfect screen size, 7" tablets are pointless) perhaps you're right.