Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.advocacy > #99417 > unrolled thread

Still Using esFAT

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Contents

  Still Using esFAT Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> - 2015-11-17 19:23 +0000
    Re: Still Using esFAT chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-17 14:09 -0600
      Re: Still Using esFAT Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-17 18:39 -0500
    Re: Still Using esFAT Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-17 22:24 +0000
      Re: Still Using esFAT Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> - 2015-11-18 03:03 +0000
      Re: Still Using esFAT Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> - 2015-11-18 16:03 +0000
    Re: Still Using esFAT Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-17 18:39 -0500
      Re: Still Using esFAT Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-18 01:04 +0100
        Re: Still Using esFAT Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-17 19:28 -0500
          Re: Still Using esFAT Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> - 2015-11-18 16:16 -0500
            Re: Still Using esFAT JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-18 20:19 -0600
              Re: Still Using esFAT Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> - 2015-11-19 09:21 -0500
                Re: Still Using esFAT JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-19 10:38 -0600
                  Re: Still Using esFAT Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> - 2015-11-19 16:38 -0500
                    Re: Still Using esFAT Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-19 18:25 -0500
                    Re: Still Using esFAT JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-20 14:15 -0600
        Still Using exFAT (spelling corrected) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-18 06:02 -0500
        Re: Still Using esFAT Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> - 2015-11-18 15:52 +0000
    Re: Still Using esFAT owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-18 00:34 +0000
      Re: Still Using esFAT Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> - 2015-11-18 02:56 +0000
        Re: Still Using esFAT owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-18 18:10 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#99417 — Still Using esFAT

So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered evil or 
what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a crime against 
humanity.

http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#99418

Justin wrote:

>So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered evil or 
>what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a crime against 
>humanity.

There are patent issues.

http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2013/156/exFAT-Filesystem

But I would not call it a crime against humanity.  "Hadron" is a crime
against humanity.  exFAT is only patent encumbered.

-- 
'[Android is] plenty open source; it's just not Free software.
Therefore it's not "real" Linux.'  -  DumFSck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99423

On 2015-11-17 3:09 PM, chrisv wrote:
> Justin wrote:
> 
>> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered evil or 
>> what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a crime against 
>> humanity.
> 
> There are patent issues.
> 
> http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2013/156/exFAT-Filesystem
> 
> But I would not call it a crime against humanity.  "Hadron" is a crime
> against humanity.  exFAT is only patent encumbered.

Why do you keep talking about a person who's been gone for a while you
condomresiduev?


-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia Member / IFAW and PETA Supporter
Death to those who would abuse and kill in the name of Islam.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99421

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:23:05 +0000, Justin wrote:

> 
> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
>

What a dufus!

That image represent the performance of a very simple task
using an overall total of 100,000+ lines of code.

Much more apropos would be: df -T /device

Do you also use imported parchments from India to wipe your
delicate ass?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99442

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:24:03 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:23:05 +0000, Justin wrote:
> 
> 
>> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
>>
>>
> What a dufus!
> 
> That image represent the performance of a very simple task using an
> overall total of 100,000+ lines of code.
> 
> Much more apropos would be: df -T /device
> 
> Do you also use imported parchments from India to wipe your delicate
> ass?
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Not that you would know, since you've never written a line of code in 
your life.  Let those of us in the real world get actual work done.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99487

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:24:03 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:23:05 +0000, Justin wrote:
> 
> 
>> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
>>
>>
> What a dufus!
> 
> That image represent the performance of a very simple task using an
> overall total of 100,000+ lines of code.
> 
> Much more apropos would be: df -T /device
> 
> Do you also use imported parchments from India to wipe your delicate
> ass?
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

How many lines of code did this take?
Its open source so yeah!  w00t!
http://postimg.org/image/4emiwx2dx/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99422

On 2015-11-17 2:23 PM, Justin wrote:
> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered evil or 
> what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a crime against 
> humanity.
> 
> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/

For compatibility purposes, exFAT is clearly one of the better choices
out there. I prefer for all of my drives to be NTFS myself but would
gladly switch to something like ext4 if it support for it was native to
all operating systems.


-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia Member / IFAW and PETA Supporter
Death to those who would abuse and kill in the name of Islam.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99424

Slimer wrote:

> On 2015-11-17 2:23 PM, Justin wrote:
>> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered evil or
>> what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a crime against
>> humanity.
>> 
>> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
> 
> For compatibility purposes, exFAT is clearly one of the better choices
> out there.

exFAT is a castrated NTFS. A very bad choice. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99425

On 2015-11-17 7:04 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Slimer wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-17 2:23 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered evil or
>>> what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a crime against
>>> humanity.
>>>
>>> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
>>
>> For compatibility purposes, exFAT is clearly one of the better choices
>> out there.
> 
> exFAT is a castrated NTFS. A very bad choice. 

If all that you're looking for is compatibility, it's fine. Is there an
operating system that CAN'T read exFAT? It's clearly not the best in
terms of capabilities though.

-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia Member / IFAW and PETA Supporter
Death to those who would abuse and kill in the name of Islam.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99505

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:28:25 -0500
Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> On 2015-11-17 7:04 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> > Slimer wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2015-11-17 2:23 PM, Justin wrote:
> >>> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered evil
> >>> or what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a crime
> >>> against humanity.
> >>>
> >>> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
> >>
> >> For compatibility purposes, exFAT is clearly one of the better
> >> choices out there.
> > 
> > exFAT is a castrated NTFS. A very bad choice. 
> 
> If all that you're looking for is compatibility, it's fine. Is there
> an operating system that CAN'T read exFAT? It's clearly not the best
> in terms of capabilities though.
> 

Yeah, Linux.
Example: Synology NAS (based on linux) can't read it.

-- 
x2w7ipoprfkuvswz
BM-2cTJKPDb8pmp6UKJLrZdhB7SojBJrBzznT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99533

On 2015-11-18, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:28:25 -0500
> Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-17 7:04 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> > Slimer wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On 2015-11-17 2:23 PM, Justin wrote:
>> >>> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered evil
>> >>> or what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a crime
>> >>> against humanity.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
>> >>
>> >> For compatibility purposes, exFAT is clearly one of the better
>> >> choices out there.
>> > 
>> > exFAT is a castrated NTFS. A very bad choice. 
>> 
>> If all that you're looking for is compatibility, it's fine. Is there
>> an operating system that CAN'T read exFAT? It's clearly not the best
>> in terms of capabilities though.
>> 
>
> Yeah, Linux.
> Example: Synology NAS (based on linux) can't read it.

    Clearly the meaning of N in NAS has escaped you.

    The fact that Synology may or may not support exFAT has no bearing
on whether or not Linux in general does.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99548

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 20:19:14 -0600
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2015-11-18, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:28:25 -0500
> > Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-11-17 7:04 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >> > Slimer wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On 2015-11-17 2:23 PM, Justin wrote:
> >> >>> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered
> >> >>> evil or what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a
> >> >>> crime against humanity.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
> >> >>
> >> >> For compatibility purposes, exFAT is clearly one of the better
> >> >> choices out there.
> >> > 
> >> > exFAT is a castrated NTFS. A very bad choice. 
> >> 
> >> If all that you're looking for is compatibility, it's fine. Is
> >> there an operating system that CAN'T read exFAT? It's clearly not
> >> the best in terms of capabilities though.
> >> 
> >
> > Yeah, Linux.
> > Example: Synology NAS (based on linux) can't read it.
> 
>     Clearly the meaning of N in NAS has escaped you.
> 
>     The fact that Synology may or may not support exFAT has no bearing
> on whether or not Linux in general does.

Are you normally this dense or are you trying extra hard today?
Synology runs Linux.
Synology does not support FAT64.  This is a fact, Google is your friend.
Therefore the fact Linux doesn't support exFAT does have a bearing on
this "discussion."

-- 
x2w7ipoprfkuvswz
BM-2cTJKPDb8pmp6UKJLrZdhB7SojBJrBzznT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99559

On 2015-11-19, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 20:19:14 -0600
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-18, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:28:25 -0500
>> > Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2015-11-17 7:04 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> >> > Slimer wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On 2015-11-17 2:23 PM, Justin wrote:
>> >> >>> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered
>> >> >>> evil or what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a
>> >> >>> crime against humanity.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For compatibility purposes, exFAT is clearly one of the better
>> >> >> choices out there.
>> >> > 
>> >> > exFAT is a castrated NTFS. A very bad choice. 
>> >> 
>> >> If all that you're looking for is compatibility, it's fine. Is
>> >> there an operating system that CAN'T read exFAT? It's clearly not
>> >> the best in terms of capabilities though.
>> >> 
>> >
>> > Yeah, Linux.
>> > Example: Synology NAS (based on linux) can't read it.
>> 
>>     Clearly the meaning of N in NAS has escaped you.
>> 
>>     The fact that Synology may or may not support exFAT has no bearing
>> on whether or not Linux in general does.
>
> Are you normally this dense or are you trying extra hard today?
> Synology runs Linux.

   So does a Tivo.
  
   Neither is the totality of Linux.

[deletia]

   I find the idea of being in the same room with a network appliance to be
a bit odd, nevermind the idea of directly physically manipulating it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99567

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:38:34 -0600
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2015-11-19, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 20:19:14 -0600
> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-11-18, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:28:25 -0500
> >> > Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2015-11-17 7:04 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >> >> > Slimer wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> On 2015-11-17 2:23 PM, Justin wrote:
> >> >> >>> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered
> >> >> >>> evil or what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was
> >> >> >>> such a crime against humanity.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> For compatibility purposes, exFAT is clearly one of the
> >> >> >> better choices out there.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > exFAT is a castrated NTFS. A very bad choice. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> If all that you're looking for is compatibility, it's fine. Is
> >> >> there an operating system that CAN'T read exFAT? It's clearly
> >> >> not the best in terms of capabilities though.
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, Linux.
> >> > Example: Synology NAS (based on linux) can't read it.
> >> 
> >>     Clearly the meaning of N in NAS has escaped you.
> >> 
> >>     The fact that Synology may or may not support exFAT has no
> >> bearing on whether or not Linux in general does.
> >
> > Are you normally this dense or are you trying extra hard today?
> > Synology runs Linux.
> 
>    So does a Tivo.
>   
>    Neither is the totality of Linux.
> 
> [deletia]
> 
>    I find the idea of being in the same room with a network appliance
> to be a bit odd, nevermind the idea of directly physically
> manipulating it.

In an enteprise environment, you're almost correct.  At home and in
small businesses it makes perfect sense.  The fact is, Linux can't
support FAT64.
However, UDF looks promising.  I'm going to experiment with a 50GB file
later tonight.

-- 
x2w7ipoprfkuvswz
BM-2cTJKPDb8pmp6UKJLrZdhB7SojBJrBzznT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99580

Justin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> In an enteprise environment, you're almost correct.  At home and in
> small businesses it makes perfect sense.  The fact is, Linux can't
> support FAT64.
> However, UDF looks promising.  I'm going to experiment with a 50GB file
> later tonight.

Idiot.

-- 
You will be reincarnated as a toad; and you will be much happier.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99610

On 2015-11-19, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:38:34 -0600
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-19, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 20:19:14 -0600
>> > JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2015-11-18, Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:28:25 -0500
>> >> > Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 2015-11-17 7:04 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> >> >> > Slimer wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> On 2015-11-17 2:23 PM, Justin wrote:
>> >> >> >>> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered
>> >> >> >>> evil or what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was
>> >> >> >>> such a crime against humanity.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> For compatibility purposes, exFAT is clearly one of the
>> >> >> >> better choices out there.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > exFAT is a castrated NTFS. A very bad choice. 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> If all that you're looking for is compatibility, it's fine. Is
>> >> >> there an operating system that CAN'T read exFAT? It's clearly
>> >> >> not the best in terms of capabilities though.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> > Yeah, Linux.
>> >> > Example: Synology NAS (based on linux) can't read it.
>> >> 
>> >>     Clearly the meaning of N in NAS has escaped you.
>> >> 
>> >>     The fact that Synology may or may not support exFAT has no
>> >> bearing on whether or not Linux in general does.
>> >
>> > Are you normally this dense or are you trying extra hard today?
>> > Synology runs Linux.
>> 
>>    So does a Tivo.
>>   
>>    Neither is the totality of Linux.
>> 
>> [deletia]
>> 
>>    I find the idea of being in the same room with a network appliance
>> to be a bit odd, nevermind the idea of directly physically
>> manipulating it.
>
> In an enteprise environment, you're almost correct.  At home and in
> small businesses it makes perfect sense.  The fact is, Linux can't

   No it doesn't. Even in a private home, you are likely not going to 
be in a particular room. That means that the NAS will be somewhere ELSE.

   Now your idea of a "small business" is just laughable.

[deletia]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99458 — Still Using exFAT (spelling corrected)

Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Slimer wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-17 2:23 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered evil or
>>> what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a crime against
>>> humanity.
>>> 
>>> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
>> 
>> For compatibility purposes, exFAT is clearly one of the better choices
>> out there.
>
> exFAT is a castrated NTFS. A very bad choice. 

Microsoft created it for two reasons:

   -  Flash drives (NTFS would rip the hell out of them)
   -  Patents (they're not going to make the "FAT" mistake all over again).

-- 
Q:	Where's the Lone Ranger take his garbage?
A:	To the dump, to the dump, to the dump dump dump!
 
Q:	What's the Pink Panther say when he steps on an ant hill?
A:	Dead ant, dead ant, dead ant dead ant dead ant...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99478

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 01:04:51 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Slimer wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-17 2:23 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered evil or
>>> what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a crime against
>>> humanity.
>>> 
>>> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
>> 
>> For compatibility purposes, exFAT is clearly one of the better choices
>> out there.
> 
> exFAT is a castrated NTFS. A very bad choice.

It isn't even that.  NTFS is a decent filesystem - too bad HP invented it.
exFAT isn't meant to be sophisticated.  Its a no-nonsense simple 
filesystem.  
I don't see what MSFT has to loose by releasing the specs or even putting 
it to open source and allowing it to be used pretty much everywhere.  Its 
not like they dumped millions of R&D Shekels into it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99426

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered evil or 
> what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a crime against 
> humanity.
> 
> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
> 

Time to get a new drive.  I'm surprised that one still works.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99441

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 00:34:05 +0000, owl wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote:
>> So yeah.  Is using exFAT on portable drives still considered evil or
>> what?  I forget the reasoning behind why it was such a crime against
>> humanity.
>> 
>> http://postimg.org/image/76lgfetcl/
>> 
>> 
> Time to get a new drive.  I'm surprised that one still works.

We've gone through a few drives, now we're using a 1TB Kingston jump 
drive for transport to the remote sites.  exFAT is still chugging away!
Mostly I use it at home so I can download movies illegally and watch them 
on my BD player.  Its amazing how even the low end BD players support MKV 
files.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.advocacy

csiph-web