6 ms·

For what it's worth, there's NTFS drivers for Linux and OS X (ntfs-3g). NTFS often gets a mixed reception, but regardless of your opinion of it, it's still mass

by laumars 10y ago

For what it's worth, there's NTFS drivers for Linux and OS X (ntfs-3g). NTFS often gets a mixed reception, but regardless of your opinion of it, it's still massively better than FAT32. Another option is ext3. The only caveat there is the Windows ext drivers don't fully support ext3 (unless I've missed an announcement). However they do fully support ext2 and ext3 is backwards compatible so you can effective get ext3 support in Windows. Sadly though, all the good stuff requires 3rd party libraries. It's a real pity everyone can't agree on a standard to replace FAT32. :(

ams6110 10y ago
Is NTFS support good enough for writing? I haven't kept up. At one time you could read NTFS on Linux well enough, but writing was not supported (or was "experimental") I think mostly because the permissions attributes were quite different from the Unix approach? And also because it was reverse-engineered and not officially endorsed by MS? Did Microsoft ever open-source the NTFS specs and drivers?
- takeda 10y ago
  This was true 15 years ago, I hope it is not true anymore. I know there was a way to write to ntfs from Linux, but it required to install ntfs driver file from Windows. I hope there is a native ntfs support that supports writing.
  - Elhana 10y ago
    Ntfs-3g writes fine on ntfs nowadays, WUBI even uses it for root, but there can be some edge cases still.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    > I know there was a way to write to ntfs from Linux, but it required to install ntfs driver file from Windows. That isn't true. You need to use ntfs-3g, which is a free software implementation of NTFS (that allows both reading and writing). It's been stable for 10 years. Using NTFS doesn't require anything from windows and doesn't require proprietary software.
    - takeda 10y ago
      It is true. I stated how it was in the past[1]. Anyway according to [1], it looks like ntfs-3g still uses a proprietary version of ntfs.sys [1] http://superuser.com/questions/139452/kernel-ntfs-driver-vs-ntfs-3g/357949#357949 http://superuser.com/questions/139452/kernel-ntfs-driver-vs-...
      - cyphar 10y ago
        I just downloaded the source for ntfs-3g[1], and it doesn't appear to have any binary blobs in it. In addition, it's under the GPLv2 so integrating proprietary components is unlikely to be legal. The answer you linked quite clearly says that the company offers a proprietary version of ntfs-3g. The answer does not say that ntfs-3g is proprietary. Also, Trisquel (an FSF-approved GNU/Linux distribtion, meaning that it doesn't have any proprietary software within 100km of the distro) has packages for ntfs-3g[2]. So it's _definitely_ entirely free software. So again, you're wrong on this point. In addition, I strongly believe that you were never correct on this point. Maybe you confused ntfs-3g with the proprietary version that company sells? [1]: http://www.tuxera.com/community/open-source-ntfs-3g/ http://www.tuxera.com/community/open-source-ntfs-3g/ [2]: http://packages.trisquel.info/search?keywords=ntfs&searchon=names&suite=belenos&section=all http://packages.trisquel.info/search?keywords=ntfs&searchon=...
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Yes, writing was the problem, not sure how good it is today Since my main usage for external media was big files (you know, the ones with extension mov, mpg, avi, etc) using FAT32 was not a big issue (unless it was bigger than 4GB of course)
- laumars 10y ago
  There were a few NTFS drivers for Linux. The native ones didn't support writing, but the ntfs-3g drivers I recommended do. ntfs-3g runs on FUSE, so it's not a native kernel driver, but honestly the slowdown from running in FUSE is hardly noticeable and they've been stable for at least 10 years. So you shouldn't have any issues running ntfs-3g. I don't know the answers to your other questions. Sorry.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Shouldn't have any issues, but don't treat it as rock-solid either. About 5 years ago ntfs-3g made a pretty big folder of mine simply disappear. To the point that when I tried a dozen recovery tools, only two of them could even see the files.
    - laumars 10y ago
      To be fair, even the most battle tested of file systems can run into occasional glitches like this when running on consumer hardware. So on any sufficiently large forum, you'll always find a few members that have experienced data loss at some point on an otherwise agreed to be stable file system driver. But for what it's worth, I've been using ntfs-3g for about 15 years and never had a single issue with it. So as much as I do sympathise with your pain, it's definitely more an edge case than the norm.
Sami_Lehtinen 10y ago
I've been using NTFS on USB sticks and external drivers for over 5 years when using Linux / Windows mixed use. No problems so far. This of course wouldn't mean it's problem free or 'rock solid', but in normal daily use I haven't encountered any. Why? Because meta data journaling. exFAT works as well, but it doesn't journal -> less reliable.
- pwg 10y ago
  You can also use UDF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format) for inter-op between Linux and Windows. Here is a Linux script to format a drive as UDF so it is usable with both Linux and Windows: https://github.com/JElchison/format-udf/blob/master/format-udf.sh https://github.com/JElchison/format-udf/blob/master/format-u... UDF works well for thumb drives that are large enough that you might want to copy a file to the thumb drive that exceeds the max file size of a FAT filesystem.
wmil 10y ago
exFAT was supposed to be the new standard. But Microsoft went a little crazy with patents and license restrictions. As a result it's about as popular as JPEG2000. It's actually a shame. A better file system for removable devices was a huge opportunity for an open standard. Ideally they could have released a filesystem that was backwards (read at least) compatible. Large files could show up as multipart files when viewed as FAT32.
zanny 10y ago
> It's a real pity everyone can't agree on a standard to replace FAT32. :( Every OS in the universe supports UDF now, and its the only real ubiquitous non-proprietary filesystem. I use it on all external storage that I cannot guarantee will be touching Linux machines exclusively.
- cyphar 10y ago
  Since it was created by the DVD consortium (that I believe gave us DRM in Corrupted Disks), is it also not patent encumbered?
  - zanny 10y ago
    It is ISO 13346, there are no patents on it.
- laumars 10y ago
  I hadn't realised UDF worked on non-optical storage. That's handy to know. Thanks

by laumars 10y ago

ams6110 10y ago

Is NTFS support good enough for writing? I haven't kept up. At one time you could read NTFS on Linux well enough, but writing was not supported (or was "experimental") I think mostly because the permissions attributes were quite different from the Unix approach? And also because it was reverse-engineered and not officially endorsed by MS? Did Microsoft ever open-source the NTFS specs and drivers?

takeda 10y ago
This was true 15 years ago, I hope it is not true anymore. I know there was a way to write to ntfs from Linux, but it required to install ntfs driver file from Windows. I hope there is a native ntfs support that supports writing.
- Elhana 10y ago
  Ntfs-3g writes fine on ntfs nowadays, WUBI even uses it for root, but there can be some edge cases still.
- cyphar 10y ago
  > I know there was a way to write to ntfs from Linux, but it required to install ntfs driver file from Windows. That isn't true. You need to use ntfs-3g, which is a free software implementation of NTFS (that allows both reading and writing). It's been stable for 10 years. Using NTFS doesn't require anything from windows and doesn't require proprietary software.
  - takeda 10y ago
    It is true. I stated how it was in the past[1]. Anyway according to [1], it looks like ntfs-3g still uses a proprietary version of ntfs.sys [1] http://superuser.com/questions/139452/kernel-ntfs-driver-vs-ntfs-3g/357949#357949 http://superuser.com/questions/139452/kernel-ntfs-driver-vs-...
    - cyphar 10y ago
      I just downloaded the source for ntfs-3g[1], and it doesn't appear to have any binary blobs in it. In addition, it's under the GPLv2 so integrating proprietary components is unlikely to be legal. The answer you linked quite clearly says that the company offers a proprietary version of ntfs-3g. The answer does not say that ntfs-3g is proprietary. Also, Trisquel (an FSF-approved GNU/Linux distribtion, meaning that it doesn't have any proprietary software within 100km of the distro) has packages for ntfs-3g[2]. So it's _definitely_ entirely free software. So again, you're wrong on this point. In addition, I strongly believe that you were never correct on this point. Maybe you confused ntfs-3g with the proprietary version that company sells? [1]: http://www.tuxera.com/community/open-source-ntfs-3g/ http://www.tuxera.com/community/open-source-ntfs-3g/ [2]: http://packages.trisquel.info/search?keywords=ntfs&searchon=names&suite=belenos&section=all http://packages.trisquel.info/search?keywords=ntfs&searchon=...
raverbashing 10y ago
Yes, writing was the problem, not sure how good it is today Since my main usage for external media was big files (you know, the ones with extension mov, mpg, avi, etc) using FAT32 was not a big issue (unless it was bigger than 4GB of course)
laumars 10y ago
There were a few NTFS drivers for Linux. The native ones didn't support writing, but the ntfs-3g drivers I recommended do. ntfs-3g runs on FUSE, so it's not a native kernel driver, but honestly the slowdown from running in FUSE is hardly noticeable and they've been stable for at least 10 years. So you shouldn't have any issues running ntfs-3g. I don't know the answers to your other questions. Sorry.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Shouldn't have any issues, but don't treat it as rock-solid either. About 5 years ago ntfs-3g made a pretty big folder of mine simply disappear. To the point that when I tried a dozen recovery tools, only two of them could even see the files.
  - laumars 10y ago
    To be fair, even the most battle tested of file systems can run into occasional glitches like this when running on consumer hardware. So on any sufficiently large forum, you'll always find a few members that have experienced data loss at some point on an otherwise agreed to be stable file system driver. But for what it's worth, I've been using ntfs-3g for about 15 years and never had a single issue with it. So as much as I do sympathise with your pain, it's definitely more an edge case than the norm.

Sami_Lehtinen 10y ago

I've been using NTFS on USB sticks and external drivers for over 5 years when using Linux / Windows mixed use. No problems so far. This of course wouldn't mean it's problem free or 'rock solid', but in normal daily use I haven't encountered any. Why? Because meta data journaling. exFAT works as well, but it doesn't journal -> less reliable.

pwg 10y ago
You can also use UDF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format) for inter-op between Linux and Windows. Here is a Linux script to format a drive as UDF so it is usable with both Linux and Windows: https://github.com/JElchison/format-udf/blob/master/format-udf.sh https://github.com/JElchison/format-udf/blob/master/format-u... UDF works well for thumb drives that are large enough that you might want to copy a file to the thumb drive that exceeds the max file size of a FAT filesystem.

wmil 10y ago

exFAT was supposed to be the new standard. But Microsoft went a little crazy with patents and license restrictions. As a result it's about as popular as JPEG2000. It's actually a shame. A better file system for removable devices was a huge opportunity for an open standard. Ideally they could have released a filesystem that was backwards (read at least) compatible. Large files could show up as multipart files when viewed as FAT32.

zanny 10y ago

> It's a real pity everyone can't agree on a standard to replace FAT32. :( Every OS in the universe supports UDF now, and its the only real ubiquitous non-proprietary filesystem. I use it on all external storage that I cannot guarantee will be touching Linux machines exclusively.

cyphar 10y ago
Since it was created by the DVD consortium (that I believe gave us DRM in Corrupted Disks), is it also not patent encumbered?
- zanny 10y ago
  It is ISO 13346, there are no patents on it.
laumars 10y ago
I hadn't realised UDF worked on non-optical storage. That's handy to know. Thanks