4 ms·

Microsoft - if you are reading this, I love this - but if you could throw Ext4 support into Windows, so that I can use Linux-formatted drives natively, that wou

Microsoft - if you are reading this, I love this - but if you could throw Ext4 support into Windows, so that I can use Linux-formatted drives natively, that would be truly next-level. I know you can do it through WSL, but that's kind of a hack compared to native support in Windows Explorer.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
speed_spread 4y ago
ext4 I don't know, but if you're willing to go with btrfs: https://github.com/hbs7/btrfs-windows https://github.com/hbs7/btrfs-windows Note that I didn't try it but it looks amazing. There's even some mad lad that uses it to boot Windows.
MarkSweep 4y ago
You can compile your own kernel to use with WSL2. See the Config file for how you can specify the path to your own kernel and the command line to pass to it: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/wsl-config https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/wsl-config Here is adding ZFS support: https://wsl.dev/wsl2-kernel-zfs/ https://wsl.dev/wsl2-kernel-zfs/
- mikepurvis 4y ago
  I think the GP's ask is for native Windows support, which is orthogonal to anything WSL/WSL2 can do.
  - barrkel 4y ago
    Native Windows support would conflict with the WSL2 stack, at its integration level. File system drivers aren't generally designed to share the underlying block device between different kernels concurrently. The block device isn't consistent with the latest writes without flushing caches, and a native driver wouldn't see those caches without hooking the Linux kernel, but that's not the WSL2 integration point. WSL2 is based on virtualization not kernel hooking. Native Windows would be able to access the file system as long as you killed all WSL2 processes first, and vice versa: run any WSL2 process and lose native access. Access via network makes far more sense.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  The WSL2 kernel already has Ext4 support.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
RockRobotRock 4y ago
use paragon software
baq 4y ago
Mount in wsl, access with explorer via \\wsl$, done
CoolCold 4y ago
Honestly I'm not seeing any single reason why it may be interesting for them - no target audience, no performance or costs gains, only spending. Not even accessibility feature to help disabled people. What kind of reasons you think may give them an idea it's worth trying?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

speed_spread 4y ago

ext4 I don't know, but if you're willing to go with btrfs: https://github.com/hbs7/btrfs-windows https://github.com/hbs7/btrfs-windows Note that I didn't try it but it looks amazing. There's even some mad lad that uses it to boot Windows.

MarkSweep 4y ago

You can compile your own kernel to use with WSL2. See the Config file for how you can specify the path to your own kernel and the command line to pass to it: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/wsl-config https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/wsl-config Here is adding ZFS support: https://wsl.dev/wsl2-kernel-zfs/ https://wsl.dev/wsl2-kernel-zfs/

mikepurvis 4y ago
I think the GP's ask is for native Windows support, which is orthogonal to anything WSL/WSL2 can do.
- barrkel 4y ago
  Native Windows support would conflict with the WSL2 stack, at its integration level. File system drivers aren't generally designed to share the underlying block device between different kernels concurrently. The block device isn't consistent with the latest writes without flushing caches, and a native driver wouldn't see those caches without hooking the Linux kernel, but that's not the WSL2 integration point. WSL2 is based on virtualization not kernel hooking. Native Windows would be able to access the file system as long as you killed all WSL2 processes first, and vice versa: run any WSL2 process and lose native access. Access via network makes far more sense.
Dylan16807 4y ago
The WSL2 kernel already has Ext4 support.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

RockRobotRock 4y ago

use paragon software

baq 4y ago

Mount in wsl, access with explorer via \\wsl$, done

CoolCold 4y ago

Honestly I'm not seeing any single reason why it may be interesting for them - no target audience, no performance or costs gains, only spending. Not even accessibility feature to help disabled people. What kind of reasons you think may give them an idea it's worth trying?