5 ms·

Since Windows and MacOS don't seem interested in having mutually supported advanced filesystems, it would be nice if we just standardized on a flat file structu

Since Windows and MacOS don't seem interested in having mutually supported advanced filesystems, it would be nice if we just standardized on a flat file structure to implement portable features. fat32 is very portable but has a 4GB limit and lacks entered attributes. exfat probably supports everything but until very recent open source drivers it lacked cross platform compatibility. Plus too many devices are going to be limited to fat32 so we might as well just use that as a common denominator. It would be nice if a DS_Store system could be used to associate split files (e.g. $NAME.1 $NAME.2, etc.) as a word around for the 4GB limit. User permission attributes and other extended attributes could be stored as well. What's interesting is that Fat32 had this feature implemented on OS/2 and Win NT via files with the "␠EA.␠SF" suffix. Unfortunately looks like it was dropped in Windows 2000.

pstuart 5y ago
exFAT seems to be a decent compromise.
- rescbr 5y ago
  exFAT works pretty well. In the past I have used UDF (yes, usually for DVDs) in external hard disks until exFAT support became common.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  There are some licensing considerations with exFAT.
  - LeoPanthera 5y ago
    Not since 2019. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Microsoft-exFAT-Specification https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Microsof... This is also when exFAT support was added to the Linux kernel.
    - mananaysiempre 5y ago
      I’m not sure this resolves anything. The disk format is no longer secret, true, but the patents are still in place and I don’t see a license anywhere in the link. (Even the one that’s present in the FAT spec released with UEFI is only valid as long as you are using it to implement UEFI.) Linux specifically gets a free pass because Microsoft joined the corresponding patent cartel (the “Open Invention Network”) in ’18, but FOSS at large is still at risk. (I also don’t see why anyone would implement the allocation-bitmap-based exFAT instead of the extent-based UDF. They haven’t even added a third FAT! ... But that’s an unrelated matter.)
- _fzslm 5y ago
  exFAT is great other than its lack of journaling, which has bit me in the ass more than a few times. file system durability is really important, especially for one for a drive being frequently moved between environments

pstuart 5y ago

exFAT seems to be a decent compromise.

rescbr 5y ago
exFAT works pretty well. In the past I have used UDF (yes, usually for DVDs) in external hard disks until exFAT support became common.
Spooky23 5y ago
There are some licensing considerations with exFAT.
- LeoPanthera 5y ago
  Not since 2019. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Microsoft-exFAT-Specification https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Microsof... This is also when exFAT support was added to the Linux kernel.
  - mananaysiempre 5y ago
    I’m not sure this resolves anything. The disk format is no longer secret, true, but the patents are still in place and I don’t see a license anywhere in the link. (Even the one that’s present in the FAT spec released with UEFI is only valid as long as you are using it to implement UEFI.) Linux specifically gets a free pass because Microsoft joined the corresponding patent cartel (the “Open Invention Network”) in ’18, but FOSS at large is still at risk. (I also don’t see why anyone would implement the allocation-bitmap-based exFAT instead of the extent-based UDF. They haven’t even added a third FAT! ... But that’s an unrelated matter.)
_fzslm 5y ago
exFAT is great other than its lack of journaling, which has bit me in the ass more than a few times. file system durability is really important, especially for one for a drive being frequently moved between environments