exFAT is widely used for high capacity SD cards in cameras
Posted on 08/29/2019 6:34:29 PM PDT by dayglored
exFAT heading towards Open Invention Network's Linux System Definition
Microsoft has published the technical specification for exFAT, a file system widely used for removable storage devices.
exFAT is widely used for high capacity SD cards in cameras
exFAT stands for Extended File Allocation Table and is widely used for things like memory cards. It is the most recent iteration of Microsoft's FAT series, a simple file system that is lightweight but lacks the resiliency and security of file systems like NTFS.
The original FAT was used by DOS in the late 1970s. It was expanded to 8-bit, 16-bit, and then to FAT32, which allows a maximum disk size of 16TB and a maximum file size of 4GB. The 4GB restriction is a problem for things like high definition video, so exFAT was developed to remove this limit.
Microsoft has several FAT-related patents, and in 2009 took action against TomTom for infringement, a matter which was later settled out of court, but which signalled to the Linux community that FAT was not safe to use. Microsoft currently offers exFAT as a licensed technology and states that "more than 100 companies license exFAT." It is possible for Linux users to add exFAT support to their systems via FUSE or non-mainline code, however, it's all unofficial due to the patent situation.
Today's publication of the exFAT specification is the first stage in what Microsoft hopes will be its inclusion in the Linux kernel. The Windows giant says it will support the inclusion of exFAT in a future revision of the Linux System Definition published by the Open Invention Network (OIN). This would mean that the exFAT patent would be covered by the OIN patent non-aggression pact.
The initiative may have been sparked by a discussion on the Linux Kernel Mailing List here. A developer offered to upload an implementation of exFAT, causing a discussion about the patent issues. "If Microsoft is going to be unfriendly about not wanting others to use their file system technology by making patent claims, why should we reward them by making their file system better by improving its interoperability?" wrote Theodore Ts'o, a software engineer who is well known for Linux contributions.
Eventually Ky Srinivasan, general manager in the Enterprise Open Source Group at Microsoft, chipped in with "I have started an internal discussion on this," and perhaps today's announcement is the outcome.
The specification itself will be published here. ®
Pretty much, yeah.
In doing a quick, superficial search I came up with this:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20051113153750111
An interesting quick read that provides some insight into the “controversy”.
Thank you, I had some more criticism but I’m going to leave it alone. :)
Great stuff! I bookmarked them for future reference! Thank you! I have just recently been a few “open source” vs “proprietary” debates and these will help greatly!
Ah, yes, one of my all-time favorite "open letters".
Calm, polite, and totally scathing.
A good example of why I was, and remain, an ardent Pamela Jones fan.
Microsoft: “we are going to let you incorporate something that doesn’t even belong to us into your kernel! Isn’t that nice of us?”
Linux: “Thanks man, but we really don’t need it”.
lol
Actually,
Linux: “GPL it then”.
Pamela Jones was nothing but a shill if not paid agent of IBM, who tried to use Linux as a vector to sell their hardware to China using supposedly patent free software. As I and many others predicted at the time, China quickly backstabbed IBM, which sent them rocketing towards the dustbins of history, while China used its own subsequent versions of Linux to build the most powerful supercomputers in the world.
Watching the Linux crowd here in the U.S. now try to frame this debacle as fond times simply shows they still haven’t learned the lesson that was so clearly presented. Reminds me of Bernie’s latest nostalgia regarding China, of late.
No idea what specific file system it would be, but it’s not like we’ve had a shortage of people proposing new ones, now is it? I believe that Microsoft (correctly) feels that if they don’t get out in front of this now, they will be stuck having to work with someone else’s file system for portable drives. As we move more and more to SSD, even for external drives, more people will be looking for something that’s better. By moving to release ExFAT to the FOSS community, Microsoft at least delays such a successor file system.
It is already very easy to install an exFAT package to Ubuntu.
That is what I like about "most" linux people. They're independent minded.
The diminutive and simple looking microSD card is a marvel.
Flash memory is notoriously loaded with bad memory bits.
It requires a pretty hefty processor to keep track of the bad spots and juggle all the requests. Typically an SD card has a 32bit 100mhz, ARM processor on board.
That little SD card is a rather powerful computer with ram, rom, flash and a tiny operating system all in a package the size of a fingernail.
Pretty cool eh?
Wise thoughts my FRiend.
They either open it up or end up dealing with another standard they have no control over at all.
Funny. That's pretty much a good description of just about everything microsoft does. "good enough, stupid but effective"
Does anyone know if NTFS does anything that EXT4 doesn't do?
I wish Apple could use NTFS because their continual changing of file systems is a bit problematic in the business world.
NTFS can compress files, can do deduplication, EXT4 can’t do snapshots (natively). Honestly, they are very similar- EXT4 of course has things I wish Microsoft would do like allow file names of any character.
What do you mean continual? Apple used HFS/HFS+ for over 25 years, only had MFS before it on Mac (and that not for long), and only now is phasing in APFS. Mac OS has gone through far fewer FS changes than Windows has in the same time.
Should also be noted that it is Microsoft that won’t share NTFS. Not anyone else’s responsibility.
They switched APFS for High Sierra and that did a number on us. We had to upgrade our Netapp SAN at the time to support the switch. Apple of course claimed backwards compatibility for a while, but we ran into immediate issues. This is a SAN that supports thousands of Windows PC’s, and over 600 servers run on it. Had to force an upgrade because of 60 Macs on the design team ;-)
High Sierra/APFS was the first file system switch in nearly 30 years. So, again, this wasn’t a ‘constant’ thing. Also, HS can be made to work with HFS+ volumes as well - I have several doing so just fine. However, NetApp’s SANs have always been a bit twitchy for HFS support, IMHO, and High Sierra is intolerant of their shenanigans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.