3 ms·

The point is, that you cannot use other filesystem, perhaps more suitable to underlying storage technology, like F2FS, because it does not work with Windows. F

The point is, that you cannot use other filesystem, perhaps more suitable to underlying storage technology, like F2FS, because it does not work with Windows. FAT is actually terrible filesystem. It's only advantage is "works with Windows". For SD-cards, it is actually mandatory to use FAT (exFAT for SDXC). It's part of the spec. MTP/PTP is a non-functioning mess.

dogma1138 11y ago
MTP/PTP works fine for what it is. Also MSFT didn't force anyone to adopt FAT32 and exFAT for SDHC and SDXC it's not even part of the SD association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD_Association If there was a better FS out there that met all the requirements for SD cards don't you think it would've been adopted? Because the last thing I think all of those guys wanted is to pay MSFT royalty fees, however the alternative could've been even more expensive.
- cyphar 11y ago
  > MTP/PTP works fine for what it is. > Also MSFT didn't force anyone to adopt FAT32 and exFAT for SDHC and SDXC it's not even part of the SD association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD_Association > If there was a better FS out there that met all the requirements for SD cards don't you think it would've been adopted? They need to allow users to plug their SD cards into their Windows machine without it being wiped. That requires using FAT. Considering the fact that most Android distributions use far more modern Linux filesystems (ext, xfs, etc), I wouldn't say that the reason they use FAT is because it's "the best FS out there". In all honesty, you can't come close to ZFS. Not to mention that Windows has poisoned the UEFI spec by requiring that your UEFI boot partition be formatted with FAT. However, as it turns out, this means that they had to give a patent grant to anyone who implements UEFI-based booting (which is why the vfat Linux kernel code is still there).
- vetinari 11y ago
  > If there was a better FS out there that met all the requirements for SD cards don't you think it would've been adopted? No, it would not. It is dependent on Microsoft's willingness to ship IFS with Windows. And why would they do that, to lose their leverage? No, common user is not going install third-party IFS module. He might not even able to do so (work computers, etc).
- icebraining 11y ago
  Because the last thing I think all of those guys wanted is to pay MSFT royalty fees, however the alternative could've been even more expensive. Those guys are SD card producers; they don't implement the FAT filesystem themselves, and therefore AFAIK don't have to pay the tax.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Samsung, Sony, Motorola Mobility....

dogma1138 11y ago

MTP/PTP works fine for what it is. Also MSFT didn't force anyone to adopt FAT32 and exFAT for SDHC and SDXC it's not even part of the SD association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD_Association If there was a better FS out there that met all the requirements for SD cards don't you think it would've been adopted? Because the last thing I think all of those guys wanted is to pay MSFT royalty fees, however the alternative could've been even more expensive.

cyphar 11y ago
> MTP/PTP works fine for what it is. > Also MSFT didn't force anyone to adopt FAT32 and exFAT for SDHC and SDXC it's not even part of the SD association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD_Association > If there was a better FS out there that met all the requirements for SD cards don't you think it would've been adopted? They need to allow users to plug their SD cards into their Windows machine without it being wiped. That requires using FAT. Considering the fact that most Android distributions use far more modern Linux filesystems (ext, xfs, etc), I wouldn't say that the reason they use FAT is because it's "the best FS out there". In all honesty, you can't come close to ZFS. Not to mention that Windows has poisoned the UEFI spec by requiring that your UEFI boot partition be formatted with FAT. However, as it turns out, this means that they had to give a patent grant to anyone who implements UEFI-based booting (which is why the vfat Linux kernel code is still there).
vetinari 11y ago
> If there was a better FS out there that met all the requirements for SD cards don't you think it would've been adopted? No, it would not. It is dependent on Microsoft's willingness to ship IFS with Windows. And why would they do that, to lose their leverage? No, common user is not going install third-party IFS module. He might not even able to do so (work computers, etc).
icebraining 11y ago
Because the last thing I think all of those guys wanted is to pay MSFT royalty fees, however the alternative could've been even more expensive. Those guys are SD card producers; they don't implement the FAT filesystem themselves, and therefore AFAIK don't have to pay the tax.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Samsung, Sony, Motorola Mobility....