Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

exFAT in the Linux kernel

cloudblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 280 posts

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#191

Post by ldng »

gvb wrote: post #7
hnarn wrote: post #3

I don't mean for this question to sound inflammatory but I can't help but think: why does this matter? You can already use exFAT on Linux via FUSE, and as pointed out by VentureBeat: > To be clear, Microsoft isn’t open-sourcing exFAT — but it is making sure anyone building with Linux can use it. 'It’s important to us that the Linux community can make use of exFAT included in the Linux kernel with confidence.' exFAT i…

According to John Gossman "Microsoft Distinguished Engineer & Linux Foundation Board Member" in a related announcement, Microsoft plans to contribute it to the Linux kernel: We also support the eventual inclusion of a Linux kernel with exFAT support in a future revision of the Open Invention Network’s Linux System Definition, where, once accepted, the code will benefit from the defensive patent commitments of OIN’s 3…

Well at least they did not deny patent issues. As for the driver, a community one is already on the way so they'll probably just piggyback on it.

Or, if they want to contribute an official driver, they should have contribute it at the same time as the spec, IMO.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#192

Post by ldng »

pwg wrote: post #142
tambourine_man wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was for optical media only. Yet, it seems there's no way to format to it out of box on macOS and support looks dodgy. I'm not willing to bet my data on an unreliable file system implementation.

> I thought it was for optical media only. Nope, although it is most commonly used on optical media it is not restricted to only optical media. From the wikipedia article: Specifications The UDF standard defines three file system variations, called "builds". These are: Plain (Random Read/Write Access). This is the original format supported in all UDF revisions ... Plain build Introduced in the first version of the st…

Have you used it IRL ? How does it fare performance wise ?

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#193

Post by paule89 »

zamalek wrote: post #25
hnarn wrote: post #3

I don't mean for this question to sound inflammatory but I can't help but think: why does this matter? You can already use exFAT on Linux via FUSE, and as pointed out by VentureBeat: > To be clear, Microsoft isn’t open-sourcing exFAT — but it is making sure anyone building with Linux can use it. 'It’s important to us that the Linux community can make use of exFAT included in the Linux kernel with confidence.' exFAT i…

The big deal here is that they are placing the patent into OIN - I'm probably correct in guessing that it is now the most powerful patent in the OIN arsenal. More electronics/software shops are going to be pressured to join the OIN. Consider sharing files on physical media and, oh, that UEFI basically uses FAT. Patent trolls are probably collectively experiencing a migraine after this news.

Also hope that uefi will soon use exfat. Still better than plain old fat.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#194

Post by paule89 »

mikorym wrote: post #189

I remember having had problems with exFAT on linux. Did it not work at all, or did you have to use user repos to get exFAT working?

You had to add it as a fuse module. I don't know if a user compiled kernel module worked. But still even if it was used as a fuse module i myself had often times problems with it. So i hope this goes away soon.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#195

Post by paule89 »

ausjke wrote: post #92

wan't Samsung providing a GPL-version of exFAT for Linux already? what's the difference assuming this news means we will have a native exFAT driver in kernel "soon". Is exFAT only good for file storage considering it has no journal ling? putting rootfs on it may have a dysfunction system relatively easily without fsck I assume.

Samsung only had used a gpl version of exfat (mainly for android) and was forced to open source it, (or someone just did, although they did not want to admit it was gpl). This lead to development of a fuse module for linux. Which can be installed. I myself never had luck using it.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#196

Post by rumanator »

jaboutboul wrote: post #103
bluedino wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Run SQL server on more cloud providers that way

Okay but this is the future of our industry. Are they just supposed to roll over or die? Shouldn’t we appreciate that after decades of bad blood they’ve decided to now wise up? Shouldn’t we give the benefit of the doubt? Companies have to face it. Community-which was once considered auxiliary bullshit that needed lip service—has now become the de-facto requirement for how to engage users and customers in a technology…

> Shouldn’t we appreciate that after decades of bad blood they’ve decided to now wise up? Shouldn’t we give the benefit of the doubt?

If they didn't supported SQL server o Linux then no one would use it, as using MS Windows on VMs forces an additional premium on deployment costs.

As I see it, supporting Linux on a specific use case is not a sign of wising up, but a desperate concession to try to stay relevant.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#197

Post by rumanator »

philwelch wrote: post #116
chme wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offering a cloud service to a linux user is like tempting a vegetarian with meat. Linux users often choose Linux because they want to be in control of their data and devices, cloud services are about giving control of that away to companies.

Linux is a kernel, it’s not a way of life. Chromebook and Android users are Linux users. People who use web applications that run on Linux servers are Linux users. Developers who use Vagrant or Docker on Mac OS, or Windows Subsystem for Linux on Windows, are Linux users. Microsoft may or may not “love” the tiny subset of users who run Linux-based desktops and are unwilling to use web applications. But that doesn’t me…

> Linux is a kernel, it’s not a way of life.

You're being disingenuous. Linux users are users of Linux and software that runs on Linux.

In the context of service deployment, this clearly refers to users who need to deploy Linux VMs to run software that runs on Linux.

The kernel is irrelevant. This use case clearly refers to Linux distributions, which nowadays probably means Debian or a Debian-based distro. So obviously in this context a Linux users means someone who needs to deploy a Debian-based distro on VMs to deploy and run software on it. In fact, more often than not when people refer to running Linux they are actually implying that they need to deploy and run software on a specific ecosystem, such as a combination of a package manager, package repository, service manager, and even f Directory tree layout.

This is not a way of life or a cult. It's a technical requirement that must be met for people to do their job.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#198

Post by jdnenej »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #136
swiley wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I hate the patent bullying Android should have never used FAT for ANYTHING . The stupidity around that continues to make everyone's lives hard to this day.

If you want an SD card that is also readable by the digital camera ecosystem, what choice do you have?

How often are people taking a microSD card from their camera and putting it in their phone considering on a lot of devices this means pulling the battery out.

Also they could support fat while not having the main system storage using fat.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#199

Post by dtech »

throwaway_391 wrote: post #132
viraptor wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd also recommend avoiding the MacOS Office build for the same reason I never understood why they made it a effectively a different product. (Once you go past the trivial interaction) Different features, different behaviours, different problems. Why is excel for Mac not the same engine with a different UI?

Probably likely to do with the toolkit used to build the Windows version and inability or unwillingness to port it to Mac. They really need to start from scratch and build solid, easily testable product because the current methodology doesn't work. I especially love the bugs where when in one specific track changes mode typing in the comments section drops keys, or when using 'read aloud' the voice randomly changes g…

> They really need to start from scratch and build solid, easily testable product because the current methodology doesn't work.

Isn't that exactly what you're trying to do with the web version

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#200

Post by pizza234 »

tw04 wrote: post #166
pedrocr wrote: post #33

I'll believe Microsoft loves Linux when I can install Microsoft Office in my desktop Linux machine. Everything else is marketing. Edit: to expand, the corporate world runs on Excel/PowerPoint/Outlook. Microsoft milks them on Windows/Office licensing and is very aggressive against organizations that try to do Linux deployments. They're a convicted monopolist that got away easily when at some point the option on the ta…

Given that Microsoft is a for-profit company, what's the financial justification for writing office for Linux on desktop? The market share isn't even a rounding error and you're talking about them investing tens of millions minimum into the development. The fact they have office on Android, iOS, and osx proves it's about market share and common sense, not some fabricated hatred or fear of Linux on the desktop.

> what's the financial justification for writing office for Linux on desktop?

Well, the same argument could be applied to their open source contributions. Considering that [canonical corporate view is that] patented ideas are expensive to produce, and that exFAT is patented, what's the financial justication for open sourcing it (the specs or else)?

The argument is ultimately against "Windows love Linux". The thesis of the parent is just that they're doing unsubstantial moves (or worse, manipulative ones), and that if they "truly loved Linux", they would do something substantial, which, for the corporate world, is to support Office on Linux.

Post reply on HN