4 ms·

This is actually too bad. These kind of decisions, compounded, is why Googles stuff is arguably so much less usable for the average Joe/Jane than Apple and why

by andymoe 12y ago

This is actually too bad. These kind of decisions, compounded, is why Googles stuff is arguably so much less usable for the average Joe/Jane than Apple and why their ecosystem is such a mess for developers to work with. They don't have the will be ruthless and cut features at the expense of geeks like me in order to make the system more usable for the average consumer.

vertex-four 12y ago
In this particular case, there really isn't anything that dropping this makes more usable. It's pretty much solely an internal thing.
Guillaume86 12y ago
Sorry if it's not very constructive but If you want Apple you should buy Apple. I have an Android phone because I like to be able to build small programs when I want without cost and when they removed SD Card write access it broke some usages I had. If it continues on this way I might as well buy an iPhone the next time. I know it's a very specific case but in this case, some more common usages were broke as well (put the sd card from your camera in your tablet to organize/clean the pics, not possible anymore)
tankenmate 12y ago
ChromeOS uses ext4 for it's root filesystem; so it would still affect the Downloads directory (it needs the isolation of user permissions for its sandbox w.r.t. the root user). In other words they will still need to make a workaround. They might as well do the right thing and support it properly; and it can be supported and still be easy to use, it just requires more work on Google's part.
jiggy2011 12y ago
How does dropping ext4 support make it more usable?
- andymoe 12y ago
  The whole let the user rename their media card name thing in the referenced ticket..?
eva1984 12y ago
iOS/OSX has huge user base. ChromeOS? I doubt
userbinator 12y ago
at the expense of geeks like me in order to make the system more usable for the average consumer. Unfortunately, although most of the "average consumers" are unlikely to become a developer, and "geeks" may be more likely to become developers, the fact is that most if not all developers start out as "average consumers" - regular users - so making it easy to stay a regular user and harder for "geeks" and developers also means fewer of the regular users will be inclined to take that next step up... end result being a reduction in the number of developers.
_pmf_ 12y ago
Not supporting common filesystems makes the system more complex for the user, not simpler.
andymoe 12y ago
Oh so much disagreement with me on this. Oh well, down-vote away... Did you all read the ticket and the initial reasoning for dropping support for the file format on the external memory card? It was so they could support renaming it more easily. I'm not saying I don't care about the file format (actually I don't) what I'm saying generally is that usability should trump most everything else and Google gets it wrong again and again.
- vertex-four 12y ago
  Renaming a FAT filesystem: mlabel -i <device> ::<label> Renaming an ext filesystem: e2label <device> <label> You can detect whether it's one or the other in the mount table. It amounts to maybe a dozen lines of bash code at maximum - maybe a few more if it's C++, depending on what abstractions already exist. I can't actually see where in the bug report it describes an issue that's specific to extfs?

by andymoe 12y ago

vertex-four 12y ago

In this particular case, there really isn't anything that dropping this makes more usable. It's pretty much solely an internal thing.

Guillaume86 12y ago

Sorry if it's not very constructive but If you want Apple you should buy Apple. I have an Android phone because I like to be able to build small programs when I want without cost and when they removed SD Card write access it broke some usages I had. If it continues on this way I might as well buy an iPhone the next time. I know it's a very specific case but in this case, some more common usages were broke as well (put the sd card from your camera in your tablet to organize/clean the pics, not possible anymore)

tankenmate 12y ago

ChromeOS uses ext4 for it's root filesystem; so it would still affect the Downloads directory (it needs the isolation of user permissions for its sandbox w.r.t. the root user). In other words they will still need to make a workaround. They might as well do the right thing and support it properly; and it can be supported and still be easy to use, it just requires more work on Google's part.

jiggy2011 12y ago

How does dropping ext4 support make it more usable?

andymoe 12y ago
The whole let the user rename their media card name thing in the referenced ticket..?

eva1984 12y ago

iOS/OSX has huge user base. ChromeOS? I doubt

userbinator 12y ago

at the expense of geeks like me in order to make the system more usable for the average consumer. Unfortunately, although most of the "average consumers" are unlikely to become a developer, and "geeks" may be more likely to become developers, the fact is that most if not all developers start out as "average consumers" - regular users - so making it easy to stay a regular user and harder for "geeks" and developers also means fewer of the regular users will be inclined to take that next step up... end result being a reduction in the number of developers.

_pmf_ 12y ago

Not supporting common filesystems makes the system more complex for the user, not simpler.

andymoe 12y ago

Oh so much disagreement with me on this. Oh well, down-vote away... Did you all read the ticket and the initial reasoning for dropping support for the file format on the external memory card? It was so they could support renaming it more easily. I'm not saying I don't care about the file format (actually I don't) what I'm saying generally is that usability should trump most everything else and Google gets it wrong again and again.

vertex-four 12y ago
Renaming a FAT filesystem: mlabel -i <device> ::<label> Renaming an ext filesystem: e2label <device> <label> You can detect whether it's one or the other in the mount table. It amounts to maybe a dozen lines of bash code at maximum - maybe a few more if it's C++, depending on what abstractions already exist. I can't actually see where in the bug report it describes an issue that's specific to extfs?