3 ms·
Obviously no one can defend this decision with the labeling non-issue while keeping a straight face, so time to guess: What they are probably bitten by is the
by cnvogel 12y ago
Obviously no one can defend this decision with the labeling non-issue while keeping a straight face, so time to guess:
What they are probably bitten by is the issue of ext4 actually keeping proper uid/gid associations with files. The other FS they seem to support [exFAT, FAT, UDF, NTFS] all are (as far as I know, and under Linux) completely agnostic to permissions and user-IDs: everything gets squashed to one uid/gid and fixed permissions.
Probably that is the actual problem they want to get rid of and which causes pains? They only mentioned the labeling as "features such as...", so there might be more bugreports/requests...
Android (at least the Cyanogenmod variety on my phone) works around it with a small fuse-shim that fixes user-visible permissions on the fly, for all FS, including ext4. And ext4 makes for a very nice and well-performing fs on my phone.
- asveikau 12y ago> FS they seem to support [... NTFS] all are (as far as I know, and under Linux) completely agnostic to permissions and user-IDs Uhhh... On Windows this definitely not true. The NT security descriptiors are kind of complex and I could imagine nobody wanting to sit down and map them to a Unixy system. But they are definitely there.
- cnvogel 12y agoThat's why I added: ...and under Linux. I'm well aware of NTFS permissions, and use them daily, both in UI and programmatically. Under Windows, though.
- icebraining 12y agoAndroid (at least the Cyanogenmod variety on my phone) works around it with a small fuse-shim that fixes user-visible permissions on the fly, for all FS, including ext4. That layer comes from AOSP, yes - unfortunately, it also screws up symlink support, which is bad for some cross-platform applications. You can still use the underlying fs directly if you have root, though.