5 ms·
I think the real, but unhelpful answer is "supply and demand". Most filesystems are used by only one operating system at a time. If two operating systems need
by seldo 14y ago
I think the real, but unhelpful answer is "supply and demand". Most filesystems are used by only one operating system at a time.
If two operating systems need to share files, they're usually on different machines, so it's simpler to copy the files or provide a network interface to them, rather than share disk-level access.
Getting different OS makers to standardize (and therefore slow innovation) on something as performance-impacting as the file system isn't worth the benefit.
- shurcooL 14y agoIs the innovation fast now?
- seldo 14y agoRight! So imagine how much slower it would be if the process involved getting the Linux community to agree with Microsoft on a standard. I realize it's not quite the bad old days anymore, but still.
- simula67 14y agoWhy does it have to be one or the other? Why can't we standardize on one file system that has to be supported by all OSes out of the box and provides fairly good read/write speed with no artificial file size limits such as FAT32 and let innovation take place inside other file systems ?
- lmm 14y agoUDF is pretty much that
- richardwhiuk 14y agoFAT32 doesn't have an artificial file size limit - it has a file size limit which was perfectly reasonable when it was developed. All filesystems have file size limits - it's not an artificial constraint, it's a design tradeoff in terms of the size of the metadata that the file system requires.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago>it's simpler to copy the files or provide a network interface to them Ding ding ding. Much easier to have a Samba server then try to make a FS work across multiple OSes. That having been said, I haven't really had that much issue with using NTFS.
- dhruvmittal 14y agoGenerally, Linux has pretty great support for reading and writing on ntfs (I want to say ntfs-3g is usually a default on most distros?), but Windows can't natively read ext3/ext4/btrfs. It's doable, though, with programs like diskinternals linux reader and explore2fs. However, these programs tend to be read-only, forcing you to copy files across to a windows-readable fs.
- saulrh 14y agoprovide a network interface to them If you're trying to use partitions off a single disk, implement this using minimal virtual machines. OSX in single-user mode and only the necessary kernel modules loaded, windows server core, suitably tiny linux. Not as good as native fs drivers (in particular, VMs are memory hogs), but cheaper than hardware and a lot faster than going through a cable.
- blablabla123 14y agoThis makes you happy until it fails. Windows, Mac OS X and even real-world Linux write state information onto the FS. (Hibernate etc.) If stuff fails, you may not be able to boot into your "native Installation" anymore. Another thing is evolving features, Windows is particularly good at this: more and more features are added to the FS, if you don't keep mini VM and native Installation in sync, weird stuff could happen. I use dual boot since many years, but I have stopped sharing partitions completely. If I need interoperability I use the Cloud, USB sticks and "normal VMs". It's fool-proof, safe and low maintenance.
- scythe 14y agoHow about a little backwards-compatible patchkit for UDF that makes it more friendly for HDD storage use? That would require a lot less work to port than something like ext4, and if it wasn't available for a certain OS, it wouldn't be -too- big of a deal.
- keeperofdakeys 14y agoUDF already has a HDD mode, it isn't just a CD filesystem. It even has support for POSIX permissions, hardlinks, softlinks, and most other features of modern filesystems. I've had Windows Vista, 7, Linux and XP (read only) use it successfully on a USB (however you need to be more paranoid to always unmount it then FAT). I've never got my UDF dicks to work on OSX however.