Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Open Source ExFAT File System Reaches 1.0 Status

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the progress-bar-finished dept.

Data Storage 151

Titus Andronicus writes "fuse-exfat, a GPLv3 implementation of the exFAT file system for Linux, FreeBSD, and OS X, has reached 1.0 status, according to an announcement from Andrew Nayenko, the primary developer. exFAT is a file system designed for sneaker-netting terabyte-scale files and groups of files on flash drives and memory cards between and among Windows, OS X, and consumer electronics devices. It was introduced by Microsoft in late 2006. Will fuse-exfat cut into Microsoft's juicy exFAT licensing revenue? Will Microsoft litigate fuse-exfat's developers and users into patent oblivion? Will there be a DKMS dynamic kernel module version of the software, similar to the ZFS on Linux project? All that remains to be seen. ReadWrite, The H, and Phoronix cover the story."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who designed it? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674059)

An ex-fatty?

The wrong way around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674157)

Microsoft will never allow one of its modern file system to have an "official" implementation on free operating systems. There will be the threat of litigation or looming incompatibility and data loss through lack of public documentation. That's why we shouldn't implement Microsoft's filesystems. Instead we should develop a simple and robust filesystem that's suitable for embedded systems and have it standardized. Right now there simply isn't an alternative to the FAT filesystems.

Re:The wrong way around (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#42674551)

Microsoft will never allow one of its modern file system to have an "official" implementation on free operating systems.

What do you mean by 'official'? You mean from Microsoft? If so yes they probably won't create a Linux implementation, but that's cool because there's this project, there's Paragon and there's Tuxera if you really want exFAT on Linux, just like NTFS. Alternatively you could use the ext file systems.

There will be the threat of litigation or looming incompatibility and data loss through lack of public documentation.

We've had the NTFS driver for a long time.

Instead we should develop a simple and robust filesystem that's suitable for embedded systems and have it standardized.

Go for it, ext3/4 is probably a good start.

Re:The wrong way around (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#42674753)

NTFS on linux was created through many years of hard work reverse engineering the filesystem from no documentation - what little MS had published was only available under licenses that would render it useless for open-source development. That it works at all is impressive, that it works so well is a small miracle. Even now, NTFS support in linux has to be via the NTFS-3G userspace filesystem - full support was never included in the kernel itsself, only read-only access. That may well be the future of linux and exFAT: It works, but exists in a legal grey area where MS could unleash the lawyers on a whim and requires untidy hacks to get around legal problems.

Re:The wrong way around (1)

chmod a+x mojo (965286) | about 2 years ago | (#42674937)

The kernel has ( or had, I haven't built one in a while ) experimental write support since at least the 2.6.18 branch or prior... I don't remember exactly when it was introduced. It is completely useless[1], but it is there.

That said NTFS-3G really is the way to go. It also, as an added bonus, fits the UNIX philosophy: "Do one thing and do it right".

[1] The in-kernel write support for NTFS only allows you to write to an existing file, and only allows you to write the same amount of data as the exact files size and name on the disk. Not very useful since you can not even create files.

Re:The wrong way around (2)

r1348 (2567295) | about 2 years ago | (#42674941)

fuse-exfat is also an userspace driver like ntfs-3g. If US-based distros like Fedora ar able to ship with ntfs-3g installed by default, they might be able to do the same with fuse-exfat, unless Microsoft closed the legal loophole used for ntfs-3g.

Re:The wrong way around (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#42675013)

NTFS support in linux has to be via the NTFS-3G userspace filesystem - full support was never included in the kernel itsself, only read-only access.

It doesn't have to be, Linux maintainers don't want patent-encumbered specs implemented in the kernel, that's their choice, distro vendors may feel differently.

Re:The wrong way around (0)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#42674931)

Microsoft will never allow one of its modern file system to have an "official" implementation on free operating systems.

What do you mean by 'official'? You mean from Microsoft? If so yes they probably won't create a Linux implementation, but that's cool because there's this project, there's Paragon and there's Tuxera if you really want exFAT on Linux, just like NTFS. Alternatively you could use the ext file systems.

ExFAT is available for Linux. It's just that Microsoft's licensing terms prohibit an open-source implementation. And they're patent licenses, I believe, as well, not just getting at the specs.

This is just one that's licensed under open-source terms, but one that Microsoft will probably not allow you to get licensed for. Or, in other words, there'll be a package for it on Google Play soon enough (though not for Jelly Bean, because Jelly Bean's Play Store introduces DRM and that's incompatible with GPLv3. But all the other Androids are fine as APKs then are not DRMed).

Re:The wrong way around (2)

aaron552 (1621603) | about 2 years ago | (#42677017)

Jelly Bean's Play Store introduces DRM and that's incompatible with GPLv3.

I wasn't aware that the APK encryption in JellyBean was mandatory.

Re:The wrong way around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42677117)

> This is just one that's licensed under open-source terms, but one that Microsoft will probably not allow you to get licensed for.

All the Android vendors who are paying the Microsoft patent tax can probably use it just fine.

Re:The wrong way around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42675035)

No, Ext3/4 is a bad start.

Requirements for Open source "fat" filesystem:

1. License that allows anyone to use it (Think BSD, MIT, X, etc)
2. Few except necessary features (think embedded)
3. Support volume sizes in excess of 100TB
4. Support file sizes in excess of 10TB
5. Windows drivers available free
6. Mac drivers available free

Re:The wrong way around (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42675089)

Off you go then. Or is it that you want somebody else to develop the thing that you want and to do it for free?

Re:The wrong way around (2, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 2 years ago | (#42674571)

Instead we should develop a simple and robust filesystem that's suitable for embedded systems and have it standardized. Right now there simply isn't an alternative to the FAT filesystems.

Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]

(Seriously though, patents on file system are bullshit.)

Re:The wrong way around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42676623)

BeFS is pretty good for small (and indeed large filesystems). Im using it on an 8GB USB stick for my Haiku work, but without Windows supporting anything but MS formats technical prowess is irellevant.

Re:The wrong way around (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#42674609)

Standardise all you want. You should know what'll happen. Windows will not support it out the box, and if Windows doesn't support it, that filesystem is effectively dead. Who is going to want a USB stick formatted so it won't work on the operating system running on upwards of ninety percent of desktops and laptops?

Re:The wrong way around (1)

kwark (512736) | about 2 years ago | (#42674901)

Put the driver for the standardized/interop filesystem in a (comparitive small 1%) fat16 partition* on the same media. Include nice installers and use the autorun features of the OS. Problem solved.

*: I had an older 512Gb USB drive that included the drivers for retarded windows versions on a seperate device, it emulated a cd with iso9960 of UDF.

Re:The wrong way around (1)

blackiner (2787381) | about 2 years ago | (#42674869)

Instead we should develop a simple and robust filesystem that's suitable for embedded systems and have it standardized. Right now there simply isn't an alternative to the FAT filesystems.

It would seem that Samsung has already done just that: http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Kernel-Log-Coming-in-3-8-Part-1-Filesystems-and-storage-1788524.html [h-online.com]

Linux now supports F2fs (Flash-Friendly File System), a filesystem that was introduced by Samsung developers in October. It is designed for flash storage media that uses a more basic Flash Translation Layer (FTL) than SSDs for desktop PCs and servers – for example USB flash drives, memory cards and the storage media that is used in cameras, tablets and smartphones.

Re:The wrong way around (1)

aaron552 (1621603) | about 2 years ago | (#42677063)

It's not really a replacement for FAT, though. F2FS is very obviously designed for flash memory, whereas FAT is media-independent.

Re:The wrong way around (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42674999)

You can call FAT and its variants a lot of things, but "modern" isn't one of them.

Re:The wrong way around (1)

peppepz (1311345) | about 2 years ago | (#42675265)

There's UDF. It works on Windows out of the box (most impotant feature), supports Unicode, large files and volumes, UNIX / DOS / OS2 / Mac file attributes and special files (symlinks, devices etc), and extended attributes. It works much faster than FAT on flash drives. And its specification is freely available. But it might be covered by patents too.

Re:The wrong way around (1)

aaron552 (1621603) | about 2 years ago | (#42677089)

It works on Windows out of the box

Write support only works out of the box on Vista and later. Not a huge problem to work around, but it's there

UDF certainly looks like the most appropriate candidate for a truly universal file system, though

This doesn't make sense to me (2)

codemaster2b (901536) | about 2 years ago | (#42674183)

A file system is normally designed for one's own usages. A file system is entirely contained within your computer system (or in the event of a distributed file system, within computers under your control). What use then is "sneaker-netting" files between Windows, OSX, and Linux? Isn't this a network concept?

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674247)

You do know what a "Sneaker Net" is dont you ? I guess not. It is using media such as SD Card or USB stick or hard drive to move files from one location to another by walking ie on your feet that are wearing sneakers, also very similar to using a "V8" net as in "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a V8 station wagon loaded with tapes / drives hurtling across the country"

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (1)

msheekhah (903443) | about 2 years ago | (#42674381)

ahh sneakernet... god I love wifi.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (3, Insightful)

steeviant (677315) | about 2 years ago | (#42674995)

ahh sneakernet... god I love wifi.

Wifi is famously good when transferring terabyte sized files like exFAT is intended for.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (0)

steveg (55825) | about 2 years ago | (#42675339)

Well, judging from the speed of flash drives that I've used, as they get bigger they get slower.

So WiFi might very well be viable as an alternative. It would be slow, but not necessarily slower.

Not that we're anywhere close to terabyte flash drives. Are they proposing shipping external USB spinning drives with exFAT? Those have been coming with NTFS, or at least the last few I've gotten did. I would think that Microsoft would be happy with that -- why would they develop exFAT in the first place?

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 2 years ago | (#42675635)

Not that we're anywhere close to terabyte flash drives.

I bet (literally, wanna?) we're within ten years.

I sometimes carry around an 8GB one, and it recently occurred to me, "Hey, this isn't really all that much bigger than the one I had in 2004. Huh. That can't be right. Wasn't that a 4GB one? Something doesn't make sense." Then I figured out my mistake. Can you guess what it was? I had the digit right, but not the unit prefix. 9 years ago, my "cool" new flash drive was 4 megabytes. This one (which is two years old and "obsolete" in some people's opinion) is two thousand times bigger. 32 GB ones are around, if I see those, that means 64 GB ones are probably on the market too. Shit, maybe I mean to say "within five years" without the pussy ten year hedging.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 2 years ago | (#42676547)

There are at least 256GB ones available here [newegg.com] . Not exactly cheap, but we only need 4x the density to hit 1TB. Might be more like 2 years.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (3, Informative)

griffjon (14945) | about 2 years ago | (#42676617)

Ahem. I believe Kingston demo'd one at CES this year, and you can buy a 512G flash drive today. Cheap? No, but I'll put money on being able to purchase a 1TB thumbdrive-style flash drive in 18 months, max.

I spent the last few days re-doing my home backup system. With an equal number of OSX and Linux devices, and no windows devices, the best option for a drive that could go back and forth with minimal custom/flaky driver installs -- but still handle files over 4gb was, of all things, NTFS. I was ... well, frankly, more pissed off about that fact than a normal person should be about disk formats.

Finally (and what I dug into this thread to say) is that Station Wagons have craptastic lag.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | about 2 years ago | (#42676669)

Dude, 512 GB flash drives have been announced by Kingston already. Sure, they're expensive, but we'll have them this year. Double that is 2 or 3 years ahead at most.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42675707)

Because NTFS isn't designed for removable media.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (0)

dannys42 (61725) | about 2 years ago | (#42675961)

It's not quite what you meant, but the Retina Macbook Pro can be upgraded to 768 MB of flash. That's pretty close to 1TB. Though it is slightly larger than a USB stick. =P

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (2)

perbu (624267) | about 2 years ago | (#42674259)

ExFAT is designed for use on SD cards and other portable storage units that get moved around.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (1)

gaudior (113467) | about 2 years ago | (#42674275)

Portable hard drives and thumbdrives are often a much better option for transferring large numbers of large files than networks, even very fast ones.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (2)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 2 years ago | (#42674337)

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes." It's still faster to drive terabytes of data across town than it is to "network" it unless you have an unusually fast internet connection on both ends and a reliable tube between the locations.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (2)

jandrese (485) | about 2 years ago | (#42674813)

The problem with that statement is that it doesn't take into account the time spent writing the data to tape, or reading it on the other side. Once you add those factors it's a lot harder to beat a good network connection.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42675255)

I used to be a Microsoft Certified Trainer. For one class, we needed to get the class materials - about 3 GB of VM images. I ordered the instructor book, which included the VM images on DVD. At the same time, I started the download from the MS download center.

The fedex truck with my instructor kit showed up 30 minutes before the download finally finished.

So there's a real life example of fedex having a greater bandwidth than Microsoft.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (1)

GuldKalle (1065310) | about 2 years ago | (#42676643)

Let it work to your advantage. There is no reason the tape can't be read while the writer is still writing.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42676773)

Depends on the specifics. If I need to get 1TB of data from one side of the state to the other, there's a latency of about 8 hours or so driving. That's roughly 278Mpbs that you'd have to have in order to beat it. Although, I should probably add some time to account for reading the disk, it's still going to take massive pipes to move data more quickly than just driving. Even if you factor in the drive back, which you shouldn't, you'd still handily beat pretty much any connection you're likely to have.

And it gets even more obscene the closer the devices are. If you're only 2 hours away, you're moving data so fast that you'd be saturating an entire gigabit network connection. At which point the reading at the end becomes quite important.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (1)

cpicon92 (1157705) | about 2 years ago | (#42674387)

"Sneaker-netting" refers to transferring files via USB flash drives.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42675125)

I feel very old now.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42675721)

Back in my day, we used punch cards.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42676577)

Or optical disk, tapes, etc. The storage device doesn't matter, it's just that you carry it around by walking in your sneakers.

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42676801)

What if I prefer to wear sandals?

Re:This doesn't make sense to me (1)

Vairon (17314) | about 2 years ago | (#42674697)

FAT filesystems are traditionally used on USB flash drives, SD cards and other removable storage to copy files between computers, cameras, printers and other devices which may not be attached to each other on a network. Sneakernet is a term for when you move files via removable storage between computers instead of using a network. For example, if you want to copy several gigabytes of data from one location to another and it would take several hours to complete via the Internet or only take 15 minutes to drive a USB stick to the target location.

Not if the network is cost prohibitive (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42676825)

What use then is "sneaker-netting" files between Windows, OSX, and Linux? Isn't this a network concept?

Not if the network is cost prohibitive. Good luck transferring 10-gigabyte files over cellular.

For once it's true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674201)

"The only way to win is not to play". If you use MS filesystem they're winning. Big operators like Google/Samsung/Sony (okay, maybe not sony) should be able to agree around some free and gratis FS for devices, and then use the courts if necessary to make sure it's easily available on Windows (I hear they have a store now).

Honestly, I'm not that concerned about FS interoperability. Mostly you just plug in your whole device or use wireless (even cameras have it nowadays), so things like being able to move memory cards to 'unknown' machines doesn't feel that important.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#42674433)

"The only way to win is not to play". If you use MS filesystem they're winning. Big operators like Google/Samsung/Sony (okay, maybe not sony) should be able to agree around some free and gratis FS for devices, and then use the courts if necessary to make sure it's easily available on Windows (I hear they have a store now).

What's wrong with ext2/3/4?

Re:For once it's true. (1, Insightful)

TheReaperD (937405) | about 2 years ago | (#42674587)

One word: Windows

Re:For once it's true. (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#42674913)

One word: Windows

ext is open, you can implement it on Windows (in fact it's already been done).

Re:For once it's true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42675037)

You don't understand. He wants to force Microsoft to officially support ext.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

TheReaperD (937405) | about 2 years ago | (#42675239)

Sadly, you'd have to adjust the thermostat in hell first.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

TheReaperD (937405) | about 2 years ago | (#42675359)

Though there are several solutions, none of them are ideal. When you're running Windows 7 x64, it gets even more hairy. Here's one discussion thread about the problem and options. [techpowerup.com] So, I'd be unwilling to call it "already been done." The problem is that the Windows file system "API" is less than functional and a pain in the ass under the best of circumstances. From what I have read, the universal "best solution" is to boot from a Linux (any) LiveCD if you want to work with ext# partitions.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#42675515)

Explore2fs works fine, doesn't support ext4 but if that's your thing then the software is under GPL so open source to the rescue.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

TheReaperD (937405) | about 2 years ago | (#42675717)

Explore2fs supports read-only and does not have Windows Vista/7/8 support. My statement still stands.

I can write code but, I'm not a programmer so any attempt I make to work on it will just make things worse.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#42675917)

Explore2fs supports read-only and does not have Windows Vista/7/8 support.

Since you won't bother to read your own link I'll quote it for you here:
Works great for me in Windows 7 x64. Provides decent transfer speed and apparently supports both read and write ability. Ignores permissions so you can get access to every file on the partition.

In any case it's not that it can't be done, it's that nobody wants it, people just write utilities that are just enough for what they need, if you cobble the functionality together you have a workable solution. It's all open so either learn to code, pay somebody to build it for you or forget it altogether and pay for one of the existing exFAT proprietary solutions, all the options are there.

Chicken and egg (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42676839)

ext is open, you can implement it on Windows (in fact it's already been done).

So if I have a USB flash drive formatted in ext, how do I load the ext driver onto an Internet-disconnected PC running Windows so that I can use the flash drive with that computer?

Re:Chicken and egg (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#42676973)

You know they have these things called 'partitions', you should google it.

Re:Chicken and egg (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42677003)

I've read that if a drive is "removable", Windows refuses to read partitions past the first.

Re:Chicken and egg (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#42677019)

I've read that if a drive is "removable", Windows refuses to read partitions past the first.

So flip the removable bit. Or use FAT32 instead.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#42674693)

The courts do not have that power. Maybe - maybe - in a full antitrust case, but the last time MS was involved in one of those... well, United States v Microsoft was filed in 1998, and concluded in 2002. Four years, and it only finished because MS settled it on terms quite favorable to themselves. Legislative action could do it, but good luck out-lobbying microsoft, not to mention all the economic conservatives screaming about how the commies are trying to steal the hard work of a good American company.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#42674721)

Those are not supported by Microsoft Windows right out of the box so that are not readily suitable for use in flash drives and SD cards.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#42674953)

Those are not supported by Microsoft Windows right out of the box so that are not readily suitable for use in flash drives and SD cards.

A lot of devices are not supported by Microsoft Windows right out of the box, that's hardly causing problems, that's just an excuse.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#42675559)

You mean the 4GB file size limit of FAT32 never causes problems? Microsoft, Apple, the Linux community, and possibly Google really should come together and create a new, open, and license-free file system spec that they all agree to support in their respective operating systems. They could come together every ten years or so to create a new spec. Of course, Microsoft wouldn't want to do that. They make too much money through threatening companies that make their own implementation of one of Microsoft's proprietary file systems.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42676879)

A lot of devices are not supported by Microsoft Windows right out of the box, that's hardly causing problems, that's just an excuse.

This, unlike the case you're thinking of, does cause problems. People normally use a USB flash drive to copy the driver for one of these "devices [that] are not supported by Microsoft Windows right out of the box" from the computer with the fast Internet connection to the computer in another building with the printer, scanner, or other similar peripheral. But when the flash drive itself is the peripheral, it creates a chicken-and-egg situation [fashionablygeek.com] . Or do you believe that anybody who doesn't carry two flash drives, one large one to store the data and one small one to store the driver for the large one, is just making excuses?

Re:For once it's true. (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#42676967)

If that's your problem then a tiny partition with a utility or driver would work fine.

Re:For once it's true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42675565)

Every time I plug my issued Microsoft keyboard into my Windows 7 laptop I am unable to use it until it goes online and re-gets the drivers for it. So if I unplug it, go to a meeting, come back and plug it back in a different port, I will not be able to log back to my session.

Re:For once it's true. (3, Interesting)

kangasloth (114799) | about 2 years ago | (#42674933)

Ext2/3/4 sucks as an interchange format. In short, it does too much. Any filesystem sufficiently complex to support real workloads is going to impose an excessive implementation burden for sneakernet. The bizarre thing is that we have a minimalist filesystem that can represent the file model with fidelity (large files, unicode names, etc) that is implemented in every modern OS: UDF. If it can read DVDs, it can read UDF and every general purpose OS released in the last decade can write to the appropriate version, 2.01. Not for nothing is it called the Universal Disk Format.

The real mystery is how did Microsoft con an industry into paying for such a lousy alternative to UDF. SDXC requires exFAT, so every new camera and anything else that hopes to read these high capacity sdcards has to cope with licensing requirements. WTF.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#42675055)

Ext2/3/4 sucks as an interchange format. In short, it does too much. Any filesystem sufficiently complex to support real workloads is going to impose an excessive implementation burden for sneakernet.

Format disk, use as normal. Hardly an excessive burden. But yes UDF works just as easily.

Re:For once it's true. (2)

Agent ME (1411269) | about 2 years ago | (#42676401)

It's annoying using a file system with file ownership on a flash drive, because chances are the computer I plug the flash drive into has an entirely different set of user IDs that don't match up to the flash drive's files' ownerships. I wish there was an easy way to mount an ext filesystem with all of the files owned by a specific user id (such as the id of the active desktop user when I plug in the flash drive). I wouldn't be surprised if there already is a way, but it should be do-able via the UI and not require root access.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 2 years ago | (#42677107)

Crappy xttrs support (4kbs if enabled)

Re:For once it's true. (4, Interesting)

grumbel (592662) | about 2 years ago | (#42674741)

Microsoft has already won by having ExtFAT part of the SDXC spec, so every big SD card comes with it. The only thing the Open Source world can do is damage control by implementing it and thus staying useful.

Re:For once it's true. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42675259)

Pretty sure the developers aren't doing it for "damage control". They're doing it because they enjoy it.

Re:For once it's true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42675507)

That's a lot of grumble from a grumbel.

exFAT is already on OS X (4, Informative)

BLToday (1777712) | about 2 years ago | (#42674213)

As far as I know it's part of OS X since Snow Leopard. But I could totally use the Linux support.

Is it legal to use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674375)

Am I allowed to use this implementation?

Does patent beat copyright? (4, Interesting)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#42674899)

Am I allowed to use this implementation?

Depends on what you want to use for: as a form of expression, you should be able to. Use the binary form to read/write, all depends on the MS patents and whether or not MS grants you a license.

Will Microsoft litigate fuse-exfat's developers and users into patent oblivion?

Regarding developers: the software is posted as source [google.com] code with instructions on how to [google.com] install them from source. Being source code, is a form of expression, protected by copyright. As such, can a commercial entity try to block the dissemination of the "speech" that the source code constitutes?
Mind you, any existing patents should not play any role into it: after all a patent is a public disclosure of methods/constructs that constitute the invention (the text of the patent is not copyrighted), so the source code should not be anything but an alternative form of expression of the same.

Regarding users: yes, using the compiled binaries would violate the temporary monopoly granted by any existing patents. However, I can't imagine any corporations starting to track which hobbyist home users:
1. downloaded the source code - should not be, per se, illegal - the copyleft license allows you to do it and the patent should not trump the copyright.
2. for each of them, ask for a discovery to see if that source code has been compiled - again, compilation should not be illegal, I'm obtaining a derivative form of expression and the GPL copyright license allows me to do it
3. use the binary - this is the only step that would violate the patent

Re:Does patent beat copyright? (1)

DaHat (247651) | about 2 years ago | (#42675143)

Being source code, is a form of expression, protected by copyright. As such, can a commercial entity try to block the dissemination of the "speech" that the source code constitutes?

Yes... because this has never happend before *rolls eyes*

Re:Does patent beat copyright? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#42675191)

Being source code, is a form of expression, protected by copyright. As such, can a commercial entity try to block the dissemination of the "speech" that the source code constitutes?

Yes... because this has never happend before *rolls eyes*

Was this as a result a law or a court decision?

Re:Does patent beat copyright? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42676057)

So by your logic, that copyright trumps patents and the use of the system is the violation I can sell/import anything I want that is covered by a patent. It's not me who is violating anything. Its the individuals who purchase and use it.

Oh wait, that's completely wrong.

I can however, do what ever I want with anything covered by a software patent in a country that doesn't enforce them. As long I don't get Kim DotCom'd by the FBI.

Re:Does patent beat copyright? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#42676179)

So by your logic, that copyright trumps patents and the use of the system is the violation I can sell/import anything I want that is covered by a patent.

Not anything, but anything that is a form of expression.

Chances are you are too young to remember/know about "encryption as a weapon" [wikipedia.org] brouhaha approx 18-22 years ago (or too old and already forgot about it).
Anyway, as a memory refresh: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that software source code was speech protected by the First Amendment and that the government's regulations preventing its publication were unconstitutional [wikipedia.org]

Re:Does patent beat copyright? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42676887)

So if I happen to write machine code myself, that machine code is protected free speech too.

Re:Does patent beat copyright? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#42677029)

So if I happen to write machine code myself, that machine code is protected free speech too.

As long as it's source code, yes. Shouldn't matter if the source code is binary.

If you think it's crazy, don't blame me: IP validly stands for "Internet Protocol" and "Imaginary property".

Re:Does patent beat copyright? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#42676085)

To the mods that used +Informative and all the readers: my apologies, I should have started with IANAL. Do NOT take the above as a reality, it is my personal opinion/assessment of the situation.

They won't sue yet. (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#42674639)

First they'll give enough time for it to get established to the point of being considered an essential for any functional desktop.

*Then* they'll start suing.

Re:They won't sue yet. (5, Informative)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 2 years ago | (#42674889)

Based on their previous actions, they will allow the use of this project in distros but will sue any commercial implementation that uses it. So they haven't sued Ubuntu or Mint, but have sued TomTom.

Re:They won't sue yet. (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#42674929)

*Then* they'll start suing.

Suing who?

Re:They won't sue yet. (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 2 years ago | (#42676307)

Obviously anyone who makes money off their shitty file system.

Re:They won't sue yet. (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 2 years ago | (#42676359)

I'm safe then.

Re:They won't sue yet. (2)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 2 years ago | (#42677001)

Me too, because I don't plan on touching any FAT file systems with a ten foot pole if I can help it. It's bad enough portable systems like cameras and phones often require it; I get my data off of those systems ASAP and on a more sane file system, first chance I get. I have already tried externally formatting my Android phone's SD card as ext2 with no success... it would be nice if ext2 and UFS were supported by these things.

Android... the Linux that can't even support its own native file system.

Re:They won't sue yet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42675085)

It's already there; check the SDXC specification. You want to support SD cards larger than 32 GB? You need to support exfat.

If SD causes you to stumble, cut it off. (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42676915)

You want to support SD cards larger than 32 GB?

No, not at least until you can prove it's absolutely necessary. Why can't a future device design just drop support for SD cards and use UDF or Ext formatted USB flash drives instead? As a widely respected first-century teacher might have put it: "If [SD support] causes you to stumble, cut it off."--Mark 9:43 [pineight.com] .

DKMS? (3, Insightful)

r1348 (2567295) | about 2 years ago | (#42674643)

As the name clearly states, this is a FUSE implementation of exFAT, i.e. userspace. In which case DKMS is as useful as a fork for soup.

So not only we get the news two days after Phoronix [1], but the poster has no idea on what he's talking about.

[1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI3OTQ [phoronix.com]

Re:DKMS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674735)

Besides which, the code is GPL 3 or later and so is entirely incompatible with the kernel.

Re:DKMS? (1)

Titus Andronicus (588015) | about 2 years ago | (#42675971)

For brevity, I didn't make clear the reasons for a DKMS version of the software (i.e. a port) in the original post. They are, in no particular order: (1) performance, due to fewer context switches, and (2) avoiding the licensing incompatibility with mainline.

Re:DKMS? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42676073)

Unless the copyright owners re-license it.

Re:DKMS? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42676925)

Good luck getting all copyright owners of a project that does not use copyright assignments to agree to relicense a work.

no need to litigate (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 2 years ago | (#42675295)

The fact that this isn't in the kernel and that device manufacturers can't ship it remains a serious problem for Linux.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?