Microsoft wants to bring exFAT to the Linux kernel

Microsoft wants to bring exFAT to the Linux kernel

Can't argue against better interoperability, but I'm skeptical. Why should the Linux community adopt Microsoft technology while Microsoft is apparently reluctant to incorporate Linux technology.

For example, Microsoft could adopt the "EXT4" file system instead of pushing exFAT. Obviously Microsoft won't do that to preserve its proprietary nature, even though they are opening up exFAT.

Originally Posted by Steve R. Microsoft wants to bring exFAT to the Linux kernel Can't argue against better interoperability, but I'm skeptical. Why should the Linux community adopt Microsoft technology while Microsoft is apparently reluctant to incorporate Linux technology. For example, Microsoft could adopt the "EXT4" file system instead of pushing exFAT. Obviously Microsoft won't do that to preserve its proprietary nature, even though they are opening up exFAT.

They could, but as you say they won't. It's just the scorpion promising to not sting.

If only we had the wherewithall to embrace what they're offering and then extend it...

Greeting me this morning was the following headline: Microsoft Brought exFAT File System to Linux, But Some Devs Aren't Happy.

What do they say about looking gift horses in the mouth? Microsoft announced Wednesday that it's "supporting the addition of [its] exFAT technology to the Linux kernel." The company positioned that as a win for Linux users, but developers were quick to voice their displeasure.

Phoronix reported today that Linux developers weren't particularly enthused about what Microsoft released, with one kernel developer calling it a "pile of crap," which is exactly the kind of frankness we've come to expect from Linux developers. The primary complaint appears to be that Microsoft re-implemented much of the Linux kernel's existing FAT driver rather than building exFAT on top of that driver.

Out of curiosity. Is the exFAT file system any good?

exFat works, but would it be a case of an "old" system being patched to work today; when the better solution would be to adopt something like EXT4?

Take from Chris Titus Tech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVJvQHuxvrI

Published on Aug 30, 2019 The Evil Empire Resurfaces! This time they have contributed ExFAT with a full GPL license. Could they be changing their ways? or is there more sinister plans at work.

Originally Posted by Steve R. For example, Microsoft could adopt the "EXT4" file system instead of pushing exFAT. Obviously Microsoft won't do that to preserve its proprietary nature, even though they are opening up exFAT.

As exFAT is already licensed and in use by other companies when formatting cards (for example, Canon cameras with cards over 128Gb) I'm quite happy it's going to become a public format that doesn't have to be reverse engineered.

Free, or not, I won't be using it!

Nowt wrong with ext4....

Originally Posted by fatmac Free, or not, I won't be using it! Nowt wrong with ext4....

for your use case

TenTenths has given a good example with cannon cameras
I doubt those will be able to use an ext4 formatted card

Would be nice if they did, but that is another debate.

I'm still at a loss why Google didn't choose another filesystem back when they needed drivers to connect to phones. A quick install of ext2 driver, or whatever, would not have been odd back when Android came out but, now, computers are expectd to have all kinds of useless "media" crud just to access an attached device.

As a side note I never did find out why the heck the "$" sign is so important to these old computing systems.

Originally Posted by 273 I'm still at a loss why Google didn't choose another filesystem back when they needed drivers to connect to phones.

The vast majority of the market was using MS windows

A quick install of ext2 driver, or whatever, would not have been odd back when Android came out

Back then there was a third party driver for ext2/3 on Windows.. but it was horribly slow and the average user would have had little to no chance of being able to use it ( too many steps to get it working )
True, it could have been improved, but why bother when they could use a proven fs that would be seamless.

but, now, computers are expectd to have all kinds of useless "media" crud just to access an attached device. As a side note I never did find out why the heck the "$" sign is so important to these old computing systems.

money makes the world go round

There are a few good things with exfat. Like the argument on ZFS I assume some will use it and be quite happy.

Originally Posted by Firerat The vast majority of the market was using MS windows Back then there was a third party driver for ext2/3 on Windows.. but it was horribly slow and the average user would have had little to no chance of being able to use it ( too many steps to get it working ) True, it could have been improved, but why bother when they could use a proven fs that would be seamless. money makes the world go round

Back in the day nearly every device needed some kind of software install to user with Windows so they could have included the driver there. Now that everything needs an extra abstraction layer installing it doesn't matter which file system devices use. There was only really a small amount of time where things "just worked" using native EXFAT drivers.
As to the "$" sign I was referring to string termination and stolen software.

MS have not released exFAT code, GPL'd nor otherwise.

MS have released specs, not code:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...-specification
https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/ope...-linux-kernel/

The code for an exFAT FS driver was accidentally released by Samsung back in 2013. It was found to be violating GPL, which forced the rest of the code to be released by Samsung under GPL, it has only ever been usable via FUSE. It was not Microsoft code.

http://techrights.org/2013/08/17/exfat-and-gpl/

The code being talked about now by Linux kernel developers is that exact same Samsung GPL'd exFAT driver:

http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/k...8.3/04254.html

+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2012-2013 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
+ */

So the idea that MS have released a GPL'd exFAT driver as being touted around by some on various blogs/youtube/tech press is nothing short of bollocks.

I'm not sure MS exfat needs to be in the kernel, but I must be missing something.
Two questions:
1. Doesn't an exfat fs already exist re'd from the fat dev base?
2. Is there an alternative to exfat for reading SD cards > 128GB?