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

231–240 of 280 posts

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#231

Post by decoyworker »

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…

Maybe they don't want to deal with how shitty a graphical desktop environment is on Linux. I've largely given up on Linux with the exception of the terminal because of this. There are just too many graphical quirks and glitches.

I know that Linux is merely a kernel but I wonder how things would have played out if the kernel contained some form of graphical environment. There are so many competing environments that you have massive choice but also nothing that really works well either.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#232

Post by pionar »

rumanator wrote: post #196
jaboutboul wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Those are really the same thing, "wising up" and "trying to stay relevant".

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#233

Post by yrro »

jdsully wrote: post #4

The big deal here is the patent grant. FAT related patents were held over linux like a gun in the Ballmer years. Its a reason Linux was stuck with 8.3 length filenames for so long.

Huh? I'm sure I've yes long file names on vfat formatted disks for years...

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#234

Post by RaleyField »

vetinari wrote: post #220
antisemiotic wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We are a totally trustworthy company, we screw only some of our customers."

In that segment? I would wonder something is wrong, if they didn't. Ideapads are in market segment, that is extremely price sensitive, but not quality-sensitive. If the competition would cost 10 bucks less, it would be a huge win for them, so everyone tries to minimize price while preserving margins as much as possible. In the end, these devices do ship with Windows, which has privacy problems anyway. All this is moo…

> In the end, these devices do ship with Windows, which has privacy problems anyway.

It does, but those are "theoretical" in comparison to the degree Lenovo stooped on, it doesn't excuse Superfish at all. Windows isn't a free for all platform, yet.

> All this is moot, when you put Linux on it, which was the context we were talking about.

_That_ time. I'll copy a response I provided two months ago as Lenovo on HN has become a seriously annoying groundhog day for me:

I can't know that whatever harmful and irrational environment that led to Superfish in IdeaPad won't affect ThinkPads in the future. Even in the most generous understanding where IdeaPad is a different, physically separate branch of the company, and Superfish was an act of incompetence and not outright malice I can't be expected to keep up with the insider intrigue of the company to notice any changes that could negatively affect me. More importantly, leadership is still responsible for setting irrational environment that lead to Superfish, whatever that environment was. This is a multi-billion dollar company, there is no excuse for such incompetence.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#235

Post by yrro »

newscracker wrote: post #179

When will we have a modern file system that “just works” for read and write on Windows, Linux and Mac without the need to buy some proprietary product or depend on some open source option that may not be maintained or 100% reliable? Seems like going over the network is the easiest option for people who use multiple OSes, though it comes with incompatibilities in permissions, ownership and also comes with a speed hit.…

Doesn't UDF work?

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#236

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

saidajigumi wrote: post #48
elipsey wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, dumb question. :) I guess I never noticed a problem because either I mostly use ext3/4, or I am so used to using legally dubious drivers that I forgot they were there. I mean, who ever gives you a FAT formatted disk? I don't have floppy drive anyway :p

Cameras. High capacity removable flash media used by digital still and video cameras is often formatted as exFAT. Despite MS' licensing, FAT/FAT32/exFAT are essentially the "file systems of interchange" for removable flash media. More info at: https://fossbytes.com/fat32-vs-ntfs-vs-exfat-difference-thre...

That's because no one has bothered to make a better FS for that sort of thing. Open FS's all insist on having UNIX's archaic permission system, which is useless at best and at worst actually harmful to moving files between systems, and they aren't as absurdly simple as FAT.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#237

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

benbristow wrote: post #209
GordonS wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other side, file ACLs in NTFS are way more powerful than the Linux owner-group-world model.

Linux NTFS support is useful for that. It doesn't support them so you can just access/nuke any files you want through it even if Windows won't let you.

That's true of every file system if you're willing to boot into a different OS instance.

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#238

Post by amaccuish »

grumpydba wrote: post #95
GordonS wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other side, file ACLs in NTFS are way more powerful than the Linux owner-group-world model.

You can use posix acls whenever you want though.

Posix acls aren't particularly nice though. RichACLs is what I'd love but they're not merged :(

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#239

Post by rahuldottech »

mackman wrote: post #17
fooker wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed.

I’ve been building SD card based Pi devices and the limiting factor in IO perf is the FUSE exFat implementation. There’s a leaked Samsung internal implementation that is over 2x as fast in my benchmarks. I can’t attest whether it’s the fact it’s FUSE or just other performance optimizations that is the reason though.

The leaked kernel was apparently later open sourced [1], although I can't actually find it on the official samsung website.

[1]: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQzODQ

Re: exFAT in the Linux kernel

#240

Post by dodgez »

My brother-in-law heard from a friend that currently works at Microsoft that during a meeting with his boss's boss's boss or so say "We got an old school monopoly. We aren't first in many areas so we aren't targeted but we are still just raking in the cash".
Post reply on HN