14 ms·
>I used FAT16 for years and years and years and never had a problem. I used FAT32 for the majority of a decade and never had a problem >I'd trust ext2 over HFS
by iSnow 12y ago
>I used FAT16 for years and years and years and never had a problem. I used FAT32 for the majority of a decade and never had a problem
>I'd trust ext2 over HFS+.
>Yes, I'm bitter.
Unfortunately not only bitter but bitter to the point of senseless argument just of the sake of argument. Trusting a non-journaled FS over a journaled without error correction/detection is a bad choice, like career-limiting bad. And if you never had problems with FATXX then you most likely never used DOS or old Windows seriously. Corrupted data and specifically corrupted MBR was really frequent back then (like corrupted b-trees on the Mac side)
- MBCook 12y agoIt's journaled now. I used DOS and Windows for years and never had any real problems (well, on hard drives, floppies were more vulnerable).
- Dylan16807 12y agoMost journals are metadata-only, so they save you from corrupt directories but don't protect contents at all. NTFS loves to wipe out just-written files when I lose power, for example. Files that previously existed, mind you, now suddenly garbage.
- lloeki 12y ago> And if you never had problems with FATXX then you most likely never used DOS or old Windows seriously Ah, the joy of "ghost" folders that ended up containing themselves...