Linux - SoftwareThis forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I don't get what the fuss is about. FAT does not have journaling or security. But it has wide global and legacy support by all OSs in practically all it's forms. So, what's the problem? If you don't like it, reformat to whatever filesystem best suits you.
I don't get what the fuss is about. FAT does not have journaling or security. But it has wide global and legacy support by all OSs in practically all it's forms. So, what's the problem? If you don't like it, reformat to whatever filesystem best suits you.
The OP just wants to vent his frustrations. He did not seem to take to heart the suggestion (all the way back in post 10 and before) that he could use any other preferred file system.
And yes, when using UEFI the efi partition must remain as a vfat file system (limited by the BIOS) even if everything else is a file system of choice. Windows also limits everything else it reads to either NTFS or FAT file systems (depending upon windows version) so the OP obviously hates everything windows as well (he just does not state that).
The OP just wants to vent his frustrations. He did not seem to take to heart the suggestion (all the way back in post 10 and before) that he could use any other preferred file system.
And yes, when using UEFI the efi partition must remain as a vfat file system (limited by the BIOS) even if everything else is a file system of choice. Windows also limits everything else it reads to either NTFS or FAT file systems (depending upon windows version) so the OP obviously hates everything windows as well (he just does not state that).
Oh boy, you're a real "savvy" one.
First of all, I was "ranting" as developer who needs to include FAT32/16/12 support in multiple software (and has done so for over 15 years).
Secondly, I'm perfectly fine with the way MS does it (+ its restrictions, most of them added to stop you from using it). My main problem is how these "restrictions" aren't followed by any 3th party tools (including everything FOSS) and the way exFAT(using just one FAT) can be abused to show up as FAT12/16/32(using two FATs) making it even worse.
All FAT related software is broken, period. (including all your low level tools on Linux/Windows/Whatever).
Seeing how Linux folk keep promoting this garbage is utterly frustrating (same for Raspberry Pi and friends where FAT32 is simply needed to run you graphic driver as it's hard coded in the file system).
PS: Most Windows peeps actually use NTFS instead of anything FAT (and I agree).
Linux needs a better alternative.
EDIT: One other thing: don't use exFAT as an alternative for FAT32 !
It's a different beast and not even remotely suited for small (OS) files.
And yes, when using UEFI the efi partition must remain as a vfat file system (limited by the BIOS)
This is plain wrong. (what do you even mean with BIOS in EUFI/EFI??? The emulation part?)
Show me one reason why FAT is needed! (you can't!)
My own custom EFI firmware doesn't and works just fine.
Because its in the UEFI specification? That would be a really good question to ask them. https://uefi.org/
Quote:
13.3 File System Format
The file system supported by the Extensible Firmware Interface is based on the FAT file system. EFI defines a specific version of FAT that is explicitly documented and testable. Conformance to the EFI specification and its associate reference documents is the only definition of FAT that needs to be implemented to support EFI. To differentiate the EFI file system from pure FAT, a new partition file system type has been defined.EFI encompasses the use of FAT32 for a system partition, and FAT12 or FAT16 for removable media. The FAT32 system partition is identified by an OSType value other than that used to identify previous versions of FAT. This unique partition type distinguishes an EFI defined file system from a normal FAT file system. The file system supported by EFI includes support for longfile names.The definition of the EFI file system will be maintained by specification and will not evolve over time to deal with errata or variant interpretations in OS file system drivers or file system utilities. Future enhancements and compatibility enhancements to FAT will not be automatically included in EFI file systems. The EFI file system is a target that is fixed by the EFI specification, and other specifications explicitly referenced by the EFI specification. For more information about the EFI file system and file image format, visit the web site from which this document was obtained.
This is plain wrong. (what do you even mean with BIOS in EUFI/EFI??? The emulation part?)
Show me one reason why FAT is needed! (you can't!)
My own custom EFI firmware doesn't and works just fine.
Custom firmware VS UEFI standard.
Way to go and make certain everything is always compatible across the board.
NOT!!
You are introducing problems that standardization (and following already established standards) solves.
You are free to your own opinion and do what you want.
The world prefers everything to just work off the shelf, which is why standards are established and followed.
Last edited by computersavvy; 10-23-2021 at 05:08 PM.
Because its in the UEFI specification? That would be a really good question to ask them.
Well yes.
In theorie that's correct.
However in practice, not single OS actually follows this.
It's kind of a laughing stock amongst developers as it's literally the worst option.
Being the actual UEFI spec is indeed a problem though.
PS:
Quote:
That would be a really good question to ask them.
Their answer was: "NTFS has legal issues" (no joke!).
It's a rather new organization, I'm still hoping their new directors will make more sense (fingers crossed).
Well, that rules out a Chromebook for me. I can't use one without basic Linux filesystem support. Why would they remove a feature like that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji
Edit: A lot of things suck lately. Have to try and work around with the tools provided.
Yeah, and it's a combination of things.
In my industry, the trend for the last 10-odd years has been "going to the cloud." This means that my databases have to be hosted by someone else. I don't like it one bit, but all of the major software providers seem to be going that way, despite the fact that even with a 100Mbps internet connection "cloud based" software is slower, less reliable and generally has fewer required features. It mystifies me that so many of my competitors put up with this crap.
I cannot overstate how much I intensely dislike so-called "software as a service."
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
