LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Software
User Name
Password
Linux - Software This 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


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-21-2021, 06:34 AM   #16
FlinchX
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2017
Distribution: Slackware Linux
Posts: 666

Rep: Reputation: Disabled

"fat shaming" gets a new meaning
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-21-2021, 09:37 AM   #17
SlowCoder
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Southeast, U.S.A.
Distribution: Debian based
Posts: 1,250

Rep: Reputation: 164Reputation: 164
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.
 
Old 10-21-2021, 09:47 AM   #18
michaelk
Moderator
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 25,839

Rep: Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowCoder View Post
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.
Except for the efi partition...
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-21-2021, 10:41 AM   #19
computersavvy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,345

Rep: Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484
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).
 
Old 10-23-2021, 08:39 AM   #20
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,465

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 299Reputation: 299Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by computersavvy View Post
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.

Last edited by jens; 10-23-2021 at 09:08 AM.
 
Old 10-23-2021, 10:27 AM   #21
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,465

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 299Reputation: 299Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by computersavvy View Post

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.
 
Old 10-23-2021, 04:27 PM   #22
michaelk
Moderator
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 25,839

Rep: Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972Reputation: 5972
I guess I am sort of repeating myself...

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.
https://uefi.org/sites/default/files..._2_8_final.pdf

Last edited by michaelk; 10-23-2021 at 04:30 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-23-2021, 05:07 PM   #23
computersavvy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,345

Rep: Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484Reputation: 1484
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens View Post
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.
 
Old 10-23-2021, 05:28 PM   #24
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,465

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 299Reputation: 299Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelk View Post
I guess I am sort of repeating myself...

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).

Last edited by jens; 10-23-2021 at 05:43 PM.
 
Old 10-23-2021, 05:58 PM   #25
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,465

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 299Reputation: 299Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by computersavvy View Post
Custom firmware VS UEFI standard.


You are introducing problems that standardization (and following already established standards) solves.
What are you rambling about?
Unlike UEFI we're actually trying (and doing way better as for the amount of features).

Last edited by jens; 10-23-2021 at 06:23 PM.
 
Old 10-23-2021, 06:06 PM   #26
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,465

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 299Reputation: 299Reputation: 299
double

Last edited by jens; 10-23-2021 at 06:10 PM. Reason: double post
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-23-2021, 11:59 PM   #27
verndog
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2007
Posts: 279

Rep: Reputation: 68
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by jens View Post
What are you rambling about?
Unlike UEFI we're actually trying (and doing way better as for the amount of features).
Who's the one rambling

Last edited by verndog; 10-24-2021 at 08:36 AM.
 
Old 10-24-2021, 08:19 AM   #28
rokytnji
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: antiX 23, MX 23
Posts: 7,162
Blog Entries: 21

Rep: Reputation: 3485Reputation: 3485Reputation: 3485Reputation: 3485Reputation: 3485Reputation: 3485Reputation: 3485Reputation: 3485Reputation: 3485Reputation: 3485Reputation: 3485
Locked in

Quote:
Filesystems
You can access files on external devices connected to your Chromebook if they use the following types of filesystems:

FAT (FAT16, FAT32, exFAT)
HFS+ (read-only on journaled HFS+)
ISO9660 (read-only)
MTP
NTFS
UDF (read-only)
Rascals
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium...tail?id=315401

Edit: A lot of things suck lately. Have to try and work around with the tools provided.

Last edited by rokytnji; 10-24-2021 at 08:24 AM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-26-2021, 03:43 PM   #29
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,465

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 299Reputation: 299Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by verndog View Post
Who's the one rambling
Enlighten me.
Since you're all so computer savvy, tell me what I'm doing wrong.

Last edited by jens; 10-26-2021 at 03:51 PM.
 
Old 10-26-2021, 05:40 PM   #30
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 4,503
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 2587Reputation: 2587Reputation: 2587Reputation: 2587Reputation: 2587Reputation: 2587Reputation: 2587Reputation: 2587Reputation: 2587Reputation: 2587Reputation: 2587
Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji View Post
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 View Post
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."

Last edited by rkelsen; 10-26-2021 at 05:46 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Find with -mtime is finding EVERYTHING since, not everything older than NobleOne Linux - Newbie 6 08-16-2017 07:50 AM
How to incorporate Contention free period and contention period together in 802.11e? stud17 Linux - Newbie 0 01-20-2012 05:27 PM
What's with all the "linux sucks" and "ubuntu sucks" articles on the Internet? Ntvu Linux - General 42 11-11-2008 02:16 PM
i want to compile fat file system module and get fat.o working ramya272 Linux - Newbie 9 02-26-2004 11:41 AM
Linux supports fat or fat 32? dark_light Linux - General 3 04-25-2002 01:06 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Software

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration