OSX now supports exFAT.  Thank God.
It looks like most of my problems in my mixed PC and Mac environment 
have been solved.
Now when is Linux going to support exFAT?

Justin pulled this Usenet face plant:

> OSX now supports exFAT.  Thank God.
> It looks like most of my problems in my mixed PC and Mac environment 
> have been solved.
> Now when is Linux going to support exFAT?

Why are you using exFAT?

Anyway:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT

Note that "Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file specification,
and a license from Microsoft is required in order to make and
distribute exFAT implementations".

Also note that, nonetheless, there are provisional implementations
available.

-- 
Who dat who say "who dat" when I say "who dat"?
		-- Hattie McDaniel

Justin wrote:
>when is Linux going to support exFAT?
>
Maybe about the same time Mozilla supports MPEG in HTML5
i.e. when those come out from under patent.

Linux supports DOZENS of filesystems
(after M$'s crappy few, all of them are better than M$'s junk).
http://google.com/search?q=minix+ext+ext2+xia+msdos+umsdos+vfat+proc+nfs+iso9660+hpfs+sysv+ncpfs+fat+OR+msdos+vfat+cramfs+smbfs+OR+smb+ufs+ntfs

Justin wrote:

> OSX now supports exFAT.  Thank God.
> It looks like most of my problems in my mixed PC and Mac environment 
> have been solved.

Good, now go & play in the Mac or windoze group.

> Now when is Linux going to support exFAT?

Frankly I don't care, I don't have any windoze PC or partitions. 

<plonk>

-- 
VIII. Any non-trivial program contains at least one bug.
FreeBSD 8.1 64-bit; Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Kubuntu 10.10 64-bit; Scientificlinux 5.5 64-bit

On 11/22/2010 4:15 PM, Justin wrote:
> OSX now supports exFAT.  Thank God.
> It looks like most of my problems in my mixed PC and Mac environment
> have been solved.
> Now when is Linux going to support exFAT?

You are looking for some help in COLA. LOL

Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
> Justin pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> OSX now supports exFAT.  Thank God.

Thank God?

For what?

You make it sound like exFAT is the second coming. It's just a damned
filesystem, and not a particularly good one either. Apart from anything
else, it doesn't seem to even support security labels. Although coming
from Microsoft, this is hardly surprising.

>> It looks like most of my problems in my mixed PC and Mac environment
>> have been solved.

How many problems did it cause you, exactly?

>> Now when is Linux going to support exFAT?

Doesn't your "mixed PC and Mac environment" support Google?

So why ask that question here, when the answer is just a click away?

> Why are you using exFAT?
>
> Anyway:
>
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT
>
> Note that "Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file
> specification, and a license from Microsoft is required in order to
> make and distribute exFAT implementations".
>
> Also note that, nonetheless, there are provisional implementations
> available.

And full implementations for Linux by Tuxera and Datalight.

Not that it matters, after all, who exactly uses this proprietary;
patented; lockin-in garbage from Microsoft anyway? Are there even any
devices using this crap yet, that it'd cause "Justin" so many supposed
"problems".

Smells like bullshit to me.

One thing's for sure: I'll never use that junk, regardless of the
availability of Linux implementations. We've already got LogFS, UBIFS,
and btrfs, with capacities up to 16 exabytes. If I live long enough to
see manufacturers come up with SSDs that can exceed that size, let me
know.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 39 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Justin wrote:
> Now when is Linux going to support exFAT?

GNU/Linux already has support for exFAT.
https://code.google.com/p/exfat/

Regards.

In article <qkbrr7-l2l.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org> 
wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
> > Justin pulled this Usenet face plant:
> >
> >> OSX now supports exFAT.  Thank God.
> 
> Thank God?
> 
> For what?
> 
> You make it sound like exFAT is the second coming. It's just a damned
> filesystem, and not a particularly good one either. Apart from anything
> else, it doesn't seem to even support security labels. Although coming
> from Microsoft, this is hardly surprising.

I wouldn't call it the second coming, but it looks like FAT is back from 
the dead.
It is not designed to have security labels - that's its purpose.  It is 
supposed to be a simple filesystem that can support files > 4GB.
Why would you want file permissions on a removable drive?  If it has to 
be secure encrypt it.  Its not like somebody who steals the drive won't 
be able to get around those precious security labels.

> 
> 
> How many problems did it cause you, exactly?

Quite a few.  I deal with files > 30GB on a regular basis - most are 
from clients.  Rather than wait two weeks for them to transfer via FTP 
clients send us portable drives and we do the same to them.
Right now we're using NTFS-3G which is less than perfect.  Its slow and 
sometimes we get permission errors transferring the junk to one of the 
servers or iMacs.

> 
> >> Now when is Linux going to support exFAT?
> 
> Doesn't your "mixed PC and Mac environment" support Google?
> 
> So why ask that question here, when the answer is just a click away?
> 
> > Why are you using exFAT?
> >
> > Anyway:
> >
> >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT
> >
> > Note that "Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file
> > specification, and a license from Microsoft is required in order to
> > make and distribute exFAT implementations".
> >
> > Also note that, nonetheless, there are provisional implementations
> > available.
> 
> And full implementations for Linux by Tuxera and Datalight.

Payware, and from what I have heard they are mediocre.

> 
> Not that it matters, after all, who exactly uses this proprietary;
> patented; lockin-in garbage from Microsoft anyway? Are there even any
> devices using this crap yet, that it'd cause "Justin" so many supposed
> "problems".

I would warrant an educated guess that devices will support exFAT/FAT64 
before ext4 or any of the filesystems you mentioned below.  Just a guess 
though.  I wouldn't mind being wrong in this area though.  

> 
> Smells like bullshit to me.
> 
> One thing's for sure: I'll never use that junk, regardless of the
> availability of Linux implementations. We've already got LogFS, UBIFS,
> and btrfs, with capacities up to 16 exabytes. If I live long enough to
> see manufacturers come up with SSDs that can exceed that size, let me
> know.

Is LogFS, btrfs or UBIFS eve implemented en masse - we'll start using 
them.  As of now exFAT is a simple solution, patented or not - it works.

Verily I say unto thee, that Justin spake thusly:
> In article <qkbrr7-l2l.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org> 
> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>>> Justin pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>>
>>>> OSX now supports exFAT.  Thank God.
>> 
>> Thank God?
>> 
>> For what?
>> 
>> You make it sound like exFAT is the second coming. It's just a damned
>> filesystem, and not a particularly good one either. Apart from
>> anything else, it doesn't seem to even support security labels.
>> Although coming from Microsoft, this is hardly surprising.
>
> I wouldn't call it the second coming, but it looks like FAT is back
> from the dead.
> It is not designed to have security labels - that's its purpose.  It
> is supposed to be a simple filesystem that can support files > 4GB.
> Why would you want file permissions on a removable drive?

Security labels are not "file permissions":

[quote]
2.4. File System Security Contexts

This section covers how file system security contexts are defined and
stored.

SELinux stores file security labels in xattrs[1]. For more information
about xattrs, read the manual pages for attr(5), getfattr(1), and
setfattr(1). Xattrs are stored as name-value property pairs associated
with files. SELinux uses the security.selinux attribute. 
[/quote]

http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/4/html/SELinux_Guide/rhlcommon-section-0019.html

If the security context of removable devices is set correctly, it would
prevent malware spreading to or from the device. This has been, and
continues to be a major problem on the Windows platform:

[quote]
USB thumb drives are convenient, popular and often free--and they're
spreading viruses like sailors on shore leave.*

The US-CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) issued a warning on
Thursday that malicious code is increasingly propagating via USB flash
drive devices.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Defense has temporarily banned the use
of thumb drives, CDs, and other removable storage devices because of the
spread of the Agent.bzt virus, a variant of the SillyFDC worm, according
to Wired.
[/quote]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10104496-83.html

Also, I just rechecked, and it seems that exFAT /does/ in fact support
security labels, but not on any version of Windows prior to Windows 7.
So (currently) 60% of all Windows users (i.e. those running XP), won't
have access to this feature.

> If it has to be secure encrypt it.

That's not the sort of security I'm referring to.

> Its not like somebody who steals the drive won't be able to get around
> those precious security labels.

That wouldn't make any difference on a system properly configured with
the correct Mandatory Access Controls policy, since the security labels
of files on a removable device would be set at mount time, in accordance
with the security policy defined for removable devices. Unless the user
had the means and the will to change the PC's security settings, he'd be
protected from this potential threat.

>> How many problems did it cause you, exactly?
>
> Quite a few.  I deal with files > 30GB on a regular basis - most are
> from clients.  Rather than wait two weeks for them to transfer via FTP
> clients send us portable drives and we do the same to them.  Right now
> we're using NTFS-3G which is less than perfect.  Its slow and
> sometimes we get permission errors transferring the junk to one of the
> servers or iMacs.

Why not just use a modern filesystem like ext4?

Even clients running Windows exclusively can boot a live Linux distro,
from a CD or thumbdrive, to transfer data to a USB HDD.

It's not like it'll cost them anything. These distros are /free/, after
all.

You'll (both) also be protecting your work from data loss due to
potential errors incurred by using a filesystem that lacks journal
recovery, and you won't need to deal with problems associated with using
FUSE filesystems like NTFS.

>>>> Now when is Linux going to support exFAT?
>> 
>> Doesn't your "mixed PC and Mac environment" support Google?
>> 
>> So why ask that question here, when the answer is just a click away?

I note you ignored this question.

So why ask this question when you already knew the answer, and why ask
it in a non-technical newsgroup dedicated to advocating Linux?
 
>> And full implementations for Linux by Tuxera and Datalight.
>
> Payware, and from what I have heard they are mediocre.

You've "heard"?

From whom?

>> Not that it matters, after all, who exactly uses this proprietary;
>> patented; lockin-in garbage from Microsoft anyway? Are there even any
>> devices using this crap yet, that it'd cause "Justin" so many
>> supposed "problems".
>
> I would warrant an educated guess that devices will support
> exFAT/FAT64 before ext4 or any of the filesystems you mentioned below.
> Just a guess though.  I wouldn't mind being wrong in this area though.

What USB mass storage devices /don't/ support Linux filesystems?
 
>> Smells like bullshit to me.
>> 
>> One thing's for sure: I'll never use that junk, regardless of the
>> availability of Linux implementations. We've already got LogFS,
>> UBIFS, and btrfs, with capacities up to 16 exabytes. If I live long
>> enough to see manufacturers come up with SSDs that can exceed that
>> size, let me know.
>
> Is LogFS, btrfs or UBIFS eve implemented en masse

Yes, of course. It's implementable on any sort of storage hardware that
Linux can access, which AFAICT is nearly all storage hardware. As to
/who/ is implementing it, or how often, I have zero interest in that,
and fail to see how it could possibly be relevant. /I/ can implement it,
and anyone receiving data I send them on such a system can /access/ it
.... using Linux, which they can obtain for free (and not even
necessarily install it first), so they have no excuse to not do so.

> - we'll start using them.

Good, you'll be doing so right away then.

> As of now exFAT is a simple solution, patented or not - it works.

As of now exFAT is virtually non-existent. 60% of all Windows users (who
are in turn supposedly 90% of all PC users) can't use exFAT. Mac and
Linux users don't /need/ to use it, because they already have superior
filesystems. Devices featuring exFAT are very few and far between (for
all the above reasons), and getting support for this proprietary and
patent encumbered junk is difficult and expensive. Meanwhile there are
better solutions, solutions that have existed for years.

So why aren't you using them?

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 39 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

In article <m2qrr7-rnl.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org> 
wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Justin spake thusly:
> > In article <qkbrr7-l2l.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org> 
> > wrote:
> >> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
> >>> Justin pulled this Usenet face plant:
> >>>
> >>>> OSX now supports exFAT.  Thank God.
> >> 
> >> Thank God?
> >> 
> >> For what?
> >> 
> >> You make it sound like exFAT is the second coming. It's just a damned
> >> filesystem, and not a particularly good one either. Apart from
> >> anything else, it doesn't seem to even support security labels.
> >> Although coming from Microsoft, this is hardly surprising.
> >
> > I wouldn't call it the second coming, but it looks like FAT is back
> > from the dead.
> > It is not designed to have security labels - that's its purpose.  It
> > is supposed to be a simple filesystem that can support files > 4GB.
> > Why would you want file permissions on a removable drive?
> 
> Security labels are not "file permissions":

> Also, I just rechecked, and it seems that exFAT /does/ in fact support
> security labels, but not on any version of Windows prior to Windows 7.
> So (currently) 60% of all Windows users (i.e. those running XP), won't
> have access to this feature.
> 
> > If it has to be secure encrypt it.
> 
> That's not the sort of security I'm referring to.
> 

> 
> That wouldn't make any difference on a system properly configured with
> the correct Mandatory Access Controls policy, since the security labels
> of files on a removable device would be set at mount time, in accordance
> with the security policy defined for removable devices. Unless the user
> had the means and the will to change the PC's security settings, he'd be
> protected from this potential threat.

But you said it does support security labels; maybe that's why its 
proprietary and closed.  Is fat16-32 considered open these days? 


> 
> Why not just use a modern filesystem like ext4?

Because there is no ext4 capabilities on OSX as of today.
That may change.  I did install btrfs-progs via Macports so I'll fool 
around with that and see if it is a better solution than exfat - which I 
find unlikely.
Is there a btrfs driver for Windows?

> 
> Even clients running Windows exclusively can boot a live Linux distro,
> from a CD or thumbdrive, to transfer data to a USB HDD.



> 
> It's not like it'll cost them anything. These distros are /free/, after
> all.

So let me get this straight, if I want to use ext4 and transfer a 30GB 
DV file to a Windows machine, the user must shut down, reboot with the 
LiveCD, transfer the file to the appropriate directory on the machine, 
shut down and reboot into Windows.

How about....  format the drive to exFAT, while the machine is running, 
plug in the Firewire, USB or eSATA cable, let the drive mount, drag and 
drop.

I'll take door number 2.

> 
> You'll (both) also be protecting your work from data loss due to
> potential errors incurred by using a filesystem that lacks journal
> recovery, and you won't need to deal with problems associated with using
> FUSE filesystems like NTFS.

That's what we're using now, NTFS-3G via FUSE.  Its buggy and slow.  
Generally every time we transfer a file to a Windows machine we reformat 
the drive to NTFS to fix the errors NTFS-3G produced.


> 
> >>>> Now when is Linux going to support exFAT?
> >> 
> >> Doesn't your "mixed PC and Mac environment" support Google?
> >> 
> >> So why ask that question here, when the answer is just a click away?
> 
> I note you ignored this question.

I did Google and I didn't find an acceptable answer.  From what I can 
tell exFAT support on Linux is still under development.
[quote]
A *proprietary, read/write solution, licensed and derived from the 
Microsoft exFAT implementation, is available for Android and other 
Linux-based operating systems from Tuxera
[/quote]
> 
> So why ask this question when you already knew the answer, and why ask
> it in a non-technical newsgroup dedicated to advocating Linux?

Why not?
> 
> You've "heard"?
> 
> From whom?

Other admins I deal with.  "Networking" isn't just with ip addresses.

> 
> What USB mass storage devices /don't/ support Linux filesystems?

Its not the device in question.  How many digital cameras will support 
ext4?  btrfs?  

> 
> Yes, of course. It's implementable on any sort of storage hardware that
> Linux can access, which AFAICT is nearly all storage hardware. As to
> /who/ is implementing it, or how often, I have zero interest in that,
> and fail to see how it could possibly be relevant. /I/ can implement it,
> and anyone receiving data I send them on such a system can /access/ it
> ... using Linux, which they can obtain for free (and not even
> necessarily install it first), so they have no excuse to not do so.

The storage hardware is *not* the issue.  Its getting the data off and 
in a usable format so the pictures of your nephew's first birthday party 
can be uploaded to mobileme, Picassa or Skydrive.  Or me where I'm 
transferring 40GB video files from clients for editing on two different 
platforms.  The hardware itself doesn't even know what filesystem its 
using, it just stores the bits.
So yes, I'm not arguing ext4 et al. can't be used on Thumbdrives, SSDs, 
or normal hard drives.  I'm arguing that it is impractical and thus not 
a viable solution.

> 
> > - we'll start using them.
> 
> Good, you'll be doing so right away then.

Wrong.
When Canon, Sony, Olympus, (Is Kodak still around?) start implementing 
those filesystems in their cameras; three things will happen.  Microsoft 
will issue an update to support it.
Apple will issue an update to support it a year later.
Linux users will laugh and brag they had access to those filesystems 
before everyone else.


> 
> > As of now exFAT is a simple solution, patented or not - it works.
> 
> As of now exFAT is virtually non-existent. 60% of all Windows users (who
> are in turn supposedly 90% of all PC users) can't use exFAT. Mac and
> Linux users don't /need/ to use it, because they already have superior
> filesystems. Devices featuring exFAT are very few and far between (for
> all the above reasons), and getting support for this proprietary and
> patent encumbered junk is difficult and expensive. Meanwhile there are
> better solutions, solutions that have existed for years.
> 
> So why aren't you using them?

I already explained.
Is there a driver for ext4 on OSX?  Nope.  The rest are commercial and 
cost money.  Since exFAT capabilities are now built in to OSX there is 
no need to find another solution; however I will keep my eyes open.

If you know of a better solution to transfer gigantic files from Windows 
to Mac and back; I''m open to suggestions.  But I'm not buying 40+ 
licenses for a piece of software thats buggy or slow which as I said 
before is what others have told me.
Before you go on, this is not a LAN, the clients and us are on two 
different networks and uploading/downloading DV files is not practical.
Believe me, we have tried.

Justin wrote:
> Homer wrote:
>> You'll (both) also be protecting your work from data loss due to
>> potential errors incurred by using a filesystem that lacks journal
>> recovery, and you won't need to deal with problems associated with using
>> FUSE filesystems like NTFS.
> 
> That's what we're using now, NTFS-3G via FUSE.  Its buggy and slow.
> Generally every time we transfer a file to a Windows machine we reformat
> the drive to NTFS to fix the errors NTFS-3G produced.

That is strange. I have used NTFS-3G extensively (e.g. backup and restore 
entire systems) and have yet to see it cause any errors. What errors is 
NTFS-3G causing?

As for slow, it is for copying many small files. For big files there is not 
much of a difference.

> I did Google and I didn't find an acceptable answer.  From what I can
> tell exFAT support on Linux is still under development.
>
> [quote]
> A *proprietary, read/write solution, licensed and derived from the
> Microsoft exFAT implementation, is available for Android and other
> Linux-based operating systems from Tuxera
> [/quote]

The current exFAT FUSE implementation is in beta and will stay in beta for a 
good while until it has been extensively tested and matured but works very 
well. Any way, I would trust it more than a new drivers, like the one for 
Mac OS X.

>> So why ask this question when you already knew the answer, and why ask
>> it in a non-technical newsgroup dedicated to advocating Linux?
> 
> Why not?

Off topic! And you started with a flame bait, "Now when is Linux going to 
support exFAT?", and a quick search would have showed Linux already has 
support for some time.
 
Regards.

Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>>
>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT
>>
>> Note that "Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file
>> specification, and a license from Microsoft is required in order to
>> make and distribute exFAT implementations".
>>
>> Also note that, nonetheless, there are provisional implementations
>> available.
>
> And full implementations for Linux by Tuxera and Datalight.
>
> Not that it matters, after all, who exactly uses this proprietary;
> patented; lockin-in garbage from Microsoft anyway? Are there even any
> devices using this crap yet, that it'd cause "Justin" so many supposed
> "problems".
>
> Smells like bullshit to me.
>
> One thing's for sure: I'll never use that junk, regardless of the
> availability of Linux implementations. We've already got LogFS, UBIFS,
> and btrfs, with capacities up to 16 exabytes. If I live long enough to
> see manufacturers come up with SSDs that can exceed that size, let me
> know.

You know why Microsoft created exFAT?  Because they let the FAT out of the
bag.  They need to float a new implementation and play the royalties game
properly this time.

And poor fools like Justin take the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

-- 
If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?
		-- Art Hoppe

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>>>
>>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT
>>>
>>> Note that "Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file
>>> specification, and a license from Microsoft is required in order to
>>> make and distribute exFAT implementations".
>>>
>>> Also note that, nonetheless, there are provisional implementations
>>> available.
>>
>> And full implementations for Linux by Tuxera and Datalight.
>>
>> Not that it matters, after all, who exactly uses this proprietary;
>> patented; lockin-in garbage from Microsoft anyway? Are there even any
>> devices using this crap yet, that it'd cause "Justin" so many supposed
>> "problems".
>>
>> Smells like bullshit to me.
>>
>> One thing's for sure: I'll never use that junk, regardless of the
>> availability of Linux implementations. We've already got LogFS, UBIFS,
>> and btrfs, with capacities up to 16 exabytes. If I live long enough to
>> see manufacturers come up with SSDs that can exceed that size, let me
>> know.
>
> You know why Microsoft created exFAT?  Because they let the FAT out of the
> bag.  They need to float a new implementation and play the royalties game
> properly this time.
>
> And poor fools like Justin take the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

Well you know what W.C Fields said: Never Give a Sucker an Even Break.

Or perhaps P.T. Barnum, who's credited with "There's a sucker born every
minute".

Anyway M$ use one of them as their company motto.  ;-)

-- 
VIII. Any non-trivial program contains at least one bug.
FreeBSD 8.1 64-bit; Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Kubuntu 10.10 64-bit; Scientificlinux 5.5 64-bit

In article <icg8g1$bhf$5@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote:

> Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:
> 
> > Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
> >>
> >>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT
> >>
> >> Note that "Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file
> >> specification, and a license from Microsoft is required in order to
> >> make and distribute exFAT implementations".
> >>
> >> Also note that, nonetheless, there are provisional implementations
> >> available.
> >
> > And full implementations for Linux by Tuxera and Datalight.
> >
> > Not that it matters, after all, who exactly uses this proprietary;
> > patented; lockin-in garbage from Microsoft anyway? Are there even any
> > devices using this crap yet, that it'd cause "Justin" so many supposed
> > "problems".
> >
> > Smells like bullshit to me.
> >
> > One thing's for sure: I'll never use that junk, regardless of the
> > availability of Linux implementations. We've already got LogFS, UBIFS,
> > and btrfs, with capacities up to 16 exabytes. If I live long enough to
> > see manufacturers come up with SSDs that can exceed that size, let me
> > know.
> 
> You know why Microsoft created exFAT?  Because they let the FAT out of the
> bag.  They need to float a new implementation and play the royalties game
> properly this time.
> 
> And poor fools like Justin take the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

Yeah...  MS sure got me!  As I sit here posting from a Macbook Pro.

Justin pulled this Usenet face plant:

> In article <icg8g1$bhf$5@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>
>> You know why Microsoft created exFAT?  Because they let the FAT out of the
>> bag.  They need to float a new implementation and play the royalties game
>> properly this time.
>> 
>> And poor fools like Justin take the bait, hook, line, and sinker.
>
> Yeah...  MS sure got me!  As I sit here posting from a Macbook Pro.

And whining about exFAT  :-D

-- 
Mediocrity finds safety in standardization.
		-- Frederick Crane

In article <icgs4b$nrv$2@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote:

> Justin pulled this Usenet face plant:
> 
> > In article <icg8g1$bhf$5@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >  Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You know why Microsoft created exFAT?  Because they let the FAT out of the
> >> bag.  They need to float a new implementation and play the royalties game
> >> properly this time.
> >> 
> >> And poor fools like Justin take the bait, hook, line, and sinker.
> >
> > Yeah...  MS sure got me!  As I sit here posting from a Macbook Pro.
> 
> And whining about exFAT  :-D

Whining?  No.  Just pointing out a fact.
Linux supports HFS+ a far more complicated FS than exFAT.

Verily I say unto thee, that Justin spake thusly:
> In article <m2qrr7-rnl.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org> 
> wrote:

> But you said it does support security labels; maybe that's why its
> proprietary and closed.  Is fat16-32 considered open these days? 

Since when do filesystems need to be "proprietary and closed" in order
to support security labels? That's like the same FUD the MSBBC's Ashley
Highfield was slinging when he claimed "if you have DRM how can you have
it open source? Because open source people will be able to find out how
it works and get round it".

http://www.links.org/?p=269

In other shocking news, AES has been cracked, because there are Open
Sauce® implementations of it.

Or ... not.

And yes, it turns out exFAT does support security labels, which you're
apparently not in favour of, because of the "complexity".

Looks like you can't use exFAT then. Just like 60% of all the other
Windows users. Maybe this accounts for why there are so few digital
cameras using exFAT media. Camera manufacturers don't want to cut off
the biggest segment of their market, after all.

>> Why not just use a modern filesystem like ext4?
>
> Because there is no ext4 capabilities on OSX as of today.

Who needs OSX just to access a storage device. Boot Linux on your Mac,
then access ext4, HFS+, NTFS, and let's face it ... nearly every single
filesystem in existence, unlike Windows and OSX. Then you can transfer
whatever you like, to wherever you like.

> That may change.  I did install btrfs-progs via Macports so I'll fool
> around with that and see if it is a better solution than exfat - which
> I find unlikely.

I find it extremely unlikely that exFAT will be better than btrfs, or
better than /any/ other filesystem, apart from legacy Microsoft crap.

> Is there a btrfs driver for Windows?

Who cares? I don't run Windows, I'll never run Windows, and Windows and
OSX users can access any filesystem they want using Linux anyway.

>> Even clients running Windows exclusively can boot a live Linux
>> distro, from a CD or thumbdrive, to transfer data to a USB HDD.
>> 
>> It's not like it'll cost them anything. These distros are /free/,
>> after all.
>
> So let me get this straight, if I want to use ext4 and transfer a 30GB
> DV file to a Windows machine, the user must shut down, reboot with the
> LiveCD, transfer the file to the appropriate directory on the machine,
> shut down and reboot into Windows.

Yes, why not?

It's no more than the average Windows user has to do anyway, given the
number of times they need to reboot for no good reason.

Do you seriously think this is such a great inconvenience, compared to
the inconvenience of running Windows in the first place, or buying a
heap of "licenses", or screwing around with experimental filesystems?

[ref: Tuxera]
>> You've "heard"?
>> 
>> From whom?
>
> Other admins I deal with.  "Networking" isn't just with ip addresses.

Really? So what crucial jobs are these admins doing that they all need
an experimental and mostly unheard-of filesystem, then pay for a third
party cross-platform implementation, when there's already native Mac and
Windows support?

How bizarre.

Presumably they're all using Windows XP.

>> What USB mass storage devices /don't/ support Linux filesystems?
>
> Its not the device in question.  How many digital cameras will support
> ext4?  btrfs?  

How many digital cameras currently use exFAT?

> The storage hardware is *not* the issue.  Its getting the data off and
> in a usable format so the pictures of your nephew's first birthday
> party can be uploaded to mobileme, Picassa or Skydrive.

Wait a minute, wasn't the whole point of your OP that you needed to
transfer files to your accountant? Who uses digital cameras for that?

And now you're talking about uploading data to online services, and
claiming there might be a problem with file types. How do filesystems
affect /filetypes/, exactly? Why would an ext4 filesystem somehow
prevent you from uploading a file, or storing compatible filetypes, or
even converting image files? Have you any idea how many image types
ImageMagick supports? It's well over 100. How many digital pictures do
you plan on sending to your accountant anyway?

Your argument is all over the place, not to mention total bullshit.

So again I ask, what is the /actual/ extent of your problem, that you
absolutely /need/ exFAT, as opposed to some imaginary problem based on
speculation and projection?

Funny how I've never encountered any of those problems, and I have three
digital cameras (technically, one is a phone), over 100 storage devices
of one kind or another, use multiple online data services (including
Picasa), share files (including large video files) with my family and
friends, and can work with thousands of filetypes ... far more than I
ever could using proprietary tools under Windows. FFmpeg alone supports
about 150 types of video, and libgphoto2 (GPhoto, digiKam et al)
supports every digital camera I've ever thrown at it (mine and others).

And I somehow manage all that without ever touching Windows or OSX, and
without ever using anything other than Linux filesystems.

Isn't that amazing?

Microsoft is not the be all and end all of computing. AFAIAC they don't
even exist, except whenever I read about their criminal exploits in the
tech. news.

> So yes, I'm not arguing ext4 et al. can't be used on Thumbdrives,
> SSDs, or normal hard drives.  I'm arguing that it is impractical and
> thus not a viable solution.

How difficult is it to boot into a Live CD?

Seriously?

> When Canon, Sony, Olympus, (Is Kodak still around?) start implementing
> those filesystems

So now you're arguing about some future event? But originally you were
full of exclamations to God about how your life had been saved by exFAT.

Your entire thread of argument is ridiculous.

> in their cameras; three things will happen.  Microsoft will

Yeah, yeah. All kinds of nasties will happen because of Microsoft. So
what's new? They've been pulling this shit since the 1970s. Guess what,
Free Software is still here, and I'm using it. I'll always use it, no
matter what those goons in Redmond do.

There's always another way.

> Linux users will laugh and brag they had access to those filesystems
> before everyone else.

I won't be one of them. Ever.

> Is there a driver for ext4 on OSX?  Nope.

Just boot Linux. It's not difficult, even for a Mac user. Honest.

> If you know of a better solution to transfer gigantic files from
> Windows to Mac and back; I''m open to suggestions.

You don't seem very open to anything, AFAICT. But I've already given you
the solution. Several times.

> But I'm not buying 40+ licenses for a piece of software thats buggy or
> slow which as I said before is what others have told me.

I bet you believe everything Steve Jobs tells you as well.

So how do /you/ hold your iPhone anyway? I hope you're following Steve's
instructions properly. He's not one of those "admins" who told you
Tuxera was crap, by any chance, is he?

> Before you go on, this is not a LAN, the clients and us are on two
> different networks and uploading/downloading DV files is not
> practical.  Believe me, we have tried.

Yes, networking is something else that Microsoft can't do.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 40 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Verily I say unto thee, that Justin spake thusly:
>
> Yeah...  MS sure got me!  As I sit here posting from a Macbook Pro.

Running Microsoft monopolyware.

Well played.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 40 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Homer stated in post fmiur7-bar.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/23/10 9:59 PM:

>>> Why not just use a modern filesystem like ext4?
>> 
>> Because there is no ext4 capabilities on OSX as of today.
> 
> Who needs OSX just to access a storage device.

OS X users would appreciate it!  Of course, if the file system were popular
and people wanted it, Apple would likely support it.  As it stands, though,
there is very little demand for ext4.  You can use FUSE, but very few people
do (again, little demand).  Disclaimer: I have never used ext4 with FUSE on
a Mac and have no idea how good the implementation is.

> Boot Linux on your Mac, then access ext4, HFS+, NTFS, and let's face it ...
> nearly every single filesystem in existence, unlike Windows and OSX. Then you
> can transfer whatever you like, to wherever you like.

I can transfer whatever I like *now* with OS X.  But I do have a Linux VM if
I ever actually need to transfer something from ext4.

.... 
>> So let me get this straight, if I want to use ext4 and transfer a 30GB
>> DV file to a Windows machine, the user must shut down, reboot with the
>> LiveCD, transfer the file to the appropriate directory on the machine,
>> shut down and reboot into Windows.
> 
> Yes, why not?

You see no problem with suggesting users should do this instead of just plug
and play.

That is... telling.
 
> It's no more than the average Windows user has to do anyway, given the
> number of times they need to reboot for no good reason.

Huh?  What?
 
> Do you seriously think this is such a great inconvenience, compared to
> the inconvenience of running Windows in the first place, or buying a
> heap of "licenses", or screwing around with experimental filesystems?

Others do not share your biases.
 
> [ref: Tuxera]
>>> You've "heard"?
>>> 
>>> From whom?
>> 
>> Other admins I deal with.  "Networking" isn't just with ip addresses.
> 
> Really? So what crucial jobs are these admins doing that they all need
> an experimental and mostly unheard-of filesystem, then pay for a third
> party cross-platform implementation, when there's already native Mac and
> Windows support?
> 
> How bizarre.
> 
> Presumably they're all using Windows XP.

Gee: above you were pushing for people to use a pretty much unheard of file
system.  Now you are against it.

.... 
>> So yes, I'm not arguing ext4 et al. can't be used on Thumbdrives,
>> SSDs, or normal hard drives.  I'm arguing that it is impractical and
>> thus not a viable solution.
> 
> How difficult is it to boot into a Live CD?
> 
> Seriously?

The fact you want people to *reboot* to read media is, well, quite telling.

....

>> Linux users will laugh and brag they had access to those filesystems
>> before everyone else.
> 
> I won't be one of them. Ever.

You already *are* bragging about how you have access to file systems... even
though it has little if any real world advantage
 
>> Is there a driver for ext4 on OSX?  Nope.
> 
> Just boot Linux. It's not difficult, even for a Mac user. Honest.

Why would most users want to boot to a different OS?  Heck, you have said
you refuse to book to Windows, but you expect others to boot to your OS of
choice.

>> If you know of a better solution to transfer gigantic files from
>> Windows to Mac and back; I''m open to suggestions.
> 
> You don't seem very open to anything, AFAICT. But I've already given you
> the solution. Several times.

Yeah: you want people to do what you will not.
....


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Homer wrote:

>Since when do filesystems need to be "proprietary and closed" in order
>to support security labels? That's like the same FUD the MSBBC's Ashley
>Highfield was slinging when he claimed "if you have DRM how can you have
>it open source? Because open source people will be able to find out how
>it works and get round it".
>
>http://www.links.org/?p=269

I think we've all seen this same FUD leveled against Linux itself,
where some ignorant twit claims that the source being open makes it
more vulnerable to attack.

>In other shocking news, AES has been cracked, because there are Open
>Sauce� implementations of it.
>
>Or ... not.

-- 
"OSS is far more likely to break standards because of the lack of
formal acceptance tests"  -  "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ah5qe614qsfjks16psmu1aer8som2k72j3@4ax.com...


more lies from chrisv the asshole mentally ill piece of shit.

In article <kpiur7-bar.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org> 
wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Justin spake thusly:
> >
> > Yeah...  MS sure got me!  As I sit here posting from a Macbook Pro.
> 
> Running Microsoft monopolyware.
> 
> Well played.

OSX is made by Microsoft?  When did this happen?

In article <fmiur7-bar.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org> 
wrote:
> 
> And yes, it turns out exFAT does support security labels, which you're
> apparently not in favour of, because of the "complexity".
> 
> Looks like you can't use exFAT then. Just like 60% of all the other
> Windows users. Maybe this accounts for why there are so few digital
> cameras using exFAT media. Camera manufacturers don't want to cut off
> the biggest segment of their market, after all.
> 
> >> Why not just use a modern filesystem like ext4?
> >
> > Because there is no ext4 capabilities on OSX as of today.
> 
> Who needs OSX just to access a storage device. Boot Linux on your Mac,
> then access ext4, HFS+, NTFS, and let's face it ... nearly every single
> filesystem in existence, unlike Windows and OSX. Then you can transfer
> whatever you like, to wherever you like.

Bad solution - not an option.
I can't ask video editors, CAD engineers and graphics artists to reboot 
three times just to transfer a file.

> 
> > That may change.  I did install btrfs-progs via Macports so I'll fool
> > around with that and see if it is a better solution than exfat - which
> > I find unlikely.
> 
> I find it extremely unlikely that exFAT will be better than btrfs, or
> better than /any/ other filesystem, apart from legacy Microsoft crap.
> 
> > Is there a btrfs driver for Windows?
> 
> Who cares? I don't run Windows, I'll never run Windows, and Windows and
> OSX users can access any filesystem they want using Linux anyway.

By rebooting twice.
How quaint.

> 
> >> Even clients running Windows exclusively can boot a live Linux
> >> distro, from a CD or thumbdrive, to transfer data to a USB HDD.
> >> 
> >> It's not like it'll cost them anything. These distros are /free/,
> >> after all.
> >
> > So let me get this straight, if I want to use ext4 and transfer a 30GB
> > DV file to a Windows machine, the user must shut down, reboot with the
> > LiveCD, transfer the file to the appropriate directory on the machine,
> > shut down and reboot into Windows.
> 
> Yes, why not?

Because its a pain in the ass.  Its one more step that I can eliminate 
by using exFAT.


> 
> It's no more than the average Windows user has to do anyway, given the
> number of times they need to reboot for no good reason.
> 
> Do you seriously think this is such a great inconvenience, compared to
> the inconvenience of running Windows in the first place, or buying a
> heap of "licenses", or screwing around with experimental filesystems?

Yes, actually.
The boys in the engineering department running AutoCAD on 'Doze 7 seem 
to do pretty well; they don't reboot, surprisingly.  If they did, I 
would hear about it.
Engineers are like artists; they want their shit working and if you 
interrupt their creative process they get pissed.  I have the privilege 
of dealing with artists, engineers and execs all on one network.

> 
> [ref: Tuxera]
> >> You've "heard"?
> >> 
> >> From whom?
> >
> > Other admins I deal with.  "Networking" isn't just with ip addresses.
> 
> Really? So what crucial jobs are these admins doing that they all need
> an experimental and mostly unheard-of filesystem, then pay for a third
> party cross-platform implementation, when there's already native Mac and
> Windows support?

exFAT is supported natively on Windows 7 and OSX; therefore your 
question is obsolete.

> 
> How bizarre.
> 
> Presumably they're all using Windows XP.

Wrong.

> 
> >> What USB mass storage devices /don't/ support Linux filesystems?
> >
> > Its not the device in question.  How many digital cameras will support
> > ext4?  btrfs?  
> 
> How many digital cameras currently use exFAT?
> 
> > The storage hardware is *not* the issue.  Its getting the data off and
> > in a usable format so the pictures of your nephew's first birthday
> > party can be uploaded to mobileme, Picassa or Skydrive.
> 
> Wait a minute, wasn't the whole point of your OP that you needed to
> transfer files to your accountant? Who uses digital cameras for that?
> 
> And now you're talking about uploading data to online services, and
> claiming there might be a problem with file types. How do filesystems
> affect /filetypes/, exactly? Why would an ext4 filesystem somehow
> prevent you from uploading a file, or storing compatible filetypes, or
> even converting image files? Have you any idea how many image types
> ImageMagick supports? It's well over 100. How many digital pictures do
> you plan on sending to your accountant anyway?
> 
> Your argument is all over the place, not to mention total bullshit.
> 
> So again I ask, what is the /actual/ extent of your problem, that you
> absolutely /need/ exFAT, as opposed to some imaginary problem based on
> speculation and projection?

The company has an Accounting, engineering and graphics artist division.
The Accounting folks have to send files to other companies - they send 
them in XLS format - rather than asking clients to install OpenOffice.
The graphics kids also deal with editing video from clients.  They range 
from ten minute instruction sets to huge news broadcast style 
maintenance of gigantic who-knows-what.  It depends on the client.
The engineers design stuff.  Using AutoCAD.  The files are huge, come 
from clients and need to be transferred.

> 
> Funny how I've never encountered any of those problems, and I have three
> digital cameras (technically, one is a phone), over 100 storage devices
> of one kind or another, use multiple online data services (including
> Picasa), share files (including large video files) with my family and
> friends, and can work with thousands of filetypes ... far more than I
> ever could using proprietary tools under Windows. FFmpeg alone supports
> about 150 types of video, and libgphoto2 (GPhoto, digiKam et al)
> supports every digital camera I've ever thrown at it (mine and others).
> 
> And I somehow manage all that without ever touching Windows or OSX, and
> without ever using anything other than Linux filesystems.
> 
> Isn't that amazing?
> 
> Microsoft is not the be all and end all of computing. AFAIAC they don't
> even exist, except whenever I read about their criminal exploits in the
> tech. news.
> 
> > So yes, I'm not arguing ext4 et al. can't be used on Thumbdrives,
> > SSDs, or normal hard drives.  I'm arguing that it is impractical and
> > thus not a viable solution.
> 
> How difficult is it to boot into a Live CD?
> 
> Seriously?

Difficult enough that when I suggested it over lunch to one of the 
engineers he said only as a last resort.
> 
> > When Canon, Sony, Olympus, (Is Kodak still around?) start implementing
> > those filesystems
> 
> So now you're arguing about some future event? But originally you were
> full of exclamations to God about how your life had been saved by exFAT.
> 
> Your entire thread of argument is ridiculous.

Suggesting multiple reboots to transfer a file when a drag an drop while 
checking email solution is already implemented.
Maybe I should stop using my automatic garage door opener while I'm at 
it.  I'll go back to the good 'ol days of manually opening it.

> 
> > in their cameras; three things will happen.  Microsoft will
> 
> Yeah, yeah. All kinds of nasties will happen because of Microsoft. So
> what's new? They've been pulling this shit since the 1970s. Guess what,
> Free Software is still here, and I'm using it. I'll always use it, no
> matter what those goons in Redmond do.
> 
> There's always another way.
> 
> > Linux users will laugh and brag they had access to those filesystems
> > before everyone else.
> 
> I won't be one of them. Ever.
> 
> > Is there a driver for ext4 on OSX?  Nope.
> 
> Just boot Linux. It's not difficult, even for a Mac user. Honest.

I guess life gets too easy at some point.  Maybe I should make things 
more difficult for everyone just so they don't get spoiled.

> 
> > If you know of a better solution to transfer gigantic files from
> > Windows to Mac and back; I''m open to suggestions.
> 
> You don't seem very open to anything, AFAICT. But I've already given you
> the solution. Several times.

Your solution sucks - I explained why several times.

> 
> > But I'm not buying 40+ licenses for a piece of software thats buggy or
> > slow which as I said before is what others have told me.
> 
> I bet you believe everything Steve Jobs tells you as well.

Says the Marxist.
When Linus talks, you listen?

> 
> So how do /you/ hold your iPhone anyway? I hope you're following Steve's
> instructions properly. He's not one of those "admins" who told you
> Tuxera was crap, by any chance, is he?

Those admins are no worse than some Marxist suggesting one reboot three 
times just to transfer a file.
What should the rebooting engineer do while the file is transferring in 
the Linux boot? Go have lunch?

I formatted all of our external drives to exFAT.  So far I haven't heard 
from anyone.  Previously there were file corruption issued with NTFS-3G 
and file permissions problems.

Do you see my dilemma?
The Graphics kids are happy.
The CAD engineers are happy.

One of the reasons the company has two different platforms is the fact 
is was formed via a merger.

In article <C911ECA5.83D9A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > How difficult is it to boot into a Live CD?
> > 
> > Seriously?
> 
> The fact you want people to *reboot* to read media is, well, quite telling.
> 

If I suggested that - I would probably be fired.
I don't think our Marxist ever worked in the real world.
Sending my professor an XLS file that was made using NeoOffice or 
Numbers is not "feeding the Microsoft beast."
Formatting a drive to exFAT on a Mac is not conceding to be a slave to 
Master Microsoft.
I honestly can't understand his reasoning behind that one.
Fine, he hates Microsoft.  I get it and understand his POV.  I hate GM; 
they're worse then MS because they stole from the government.

Verily I say unto thee, that Justin spake thusly:
> In article <fmiur7-bar.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org> 
> wrote:

[snip endless excuses about rebooting] 

>> Really? So what crucial jobs are these admins doing that they all
>> need an experimental and mostly unheard-of filesystem, then pay for a
>> third party cross-platform implementation, when there's already
>> native Mac and Windows support?
>
> exFAT is supported natively on Windows 7 and OSX

That's what I just wrote.

> therefore your question is obsolete.

No, you claimed these "admins" told you Tuxera's exFAT solution was
crap, but the question is how would they know it was crap, if they don't
need to use it, because they already have native support?

You're not a very good liar, are you?

>> How bizarre.
>> 
>> Presumably they're all using Windows XP.
>
> Wrong.

So how else do you explain these "admins" having such extensive
knowledge of Tuxera's software? They must have had /some/ reason to pay
for all the expensive licenses you complained about.

>> How many digital cameras currently use exFAT?

I note you ignored that question.

>> So again I ask, what is the /actual/ extent of your problem, that you
>> absolutely /need/ exFAT, as opposed to some imaginary problem based
>> on speculation and projection?
>
> The company has an Accounting, engineering and graphics artist
> division.  The Accounting folks have to send files to other companies
> - they send them in XLS format - rather than asking clients to install
> OpenOffice.

You need exFAT for /that/?

And how large are these XLS spreadsheets, that you'd need MTD storage
with a capacity greater than 32GB? I knew Microsoft Orifice was bloated,
but I didn't know it was /that/ bad.

> The graphics kids also deal with editing video from clients.  They
> range from ten minute instruction sets to huge news broadcast style
> maintenance of gigantic who-knows-what.  It depends on the client.
> The engineers design stuff.  Using AutoCAD.  The files are huge, come
> from clients and need to be transferred.

So these video "engineers" need to transfer video files larger than 32GB
in size (which is why they need exFAT, right?). And the current maximum
transfer speed of SDXC (what exFAT was designed for) media is 104MB/s.
So a 32768MB file will take 32768/104 = 315 seconds minimum. Allowing
for overheads and other bottlenecks, that's around 6 minutes. Given that
we're talking about Windows, more like 10.

So what you're saying is, a video "engineer" can sit twiddling his
thumbs for 10 minutes (interrupting his precious workflow), but he can't
spend 60 seconds rebooting into a Live Linux CD or a dual-boot
partition, to gain access to any device, of any capacity, using any
filesystem, without needing to pay expensive license fees, or use
experimental filesystems?

Bullshit.

>> How difficult is it to boot into a Live CD?
>> 
>> Seriously?
>
> Difficult enough that when I suggested it over lunch to one of the
> engineers he said only as a last resort.

Well he's as ignorant as you then.

[snip more pathetic excuses]

>>> But I'm not buying 40+ licenses for a piece of software thats buggy
>>> or slow which as I said before is what others have told me.
>> 
>> I bet you believe everything Steve Jobs tells you as well.
>
> Says the Marxist.

Why do you equate freedom to Marxism?

Is the Statue of Liberty a communist icon?

Maybe you think it is, but then it's so hard to tell what right-wing
extremists really believe in, given their limited capacity for reason.

> When Linus talks, you listen?

And then heavily criticise, especially when he writes crap like "I like
Tivoization".

Boy, did you get /that/ one wrong. Of all the people you chose to accuse
of being a Linus disciple, you had to choose the one who wrote this:

http://slated.org/torvalds_hatred_of_microsoft_critics_is_a_disease

>> So how do /you/ hold your iPhone anyway? I hope you're following
>> Steve's instructions properly. He's not one of those "admins" who
>> told you Tuxera was crap, by any chance, is he?
>
> Those admins are no worse than some Marxist suggesting one reboot
> three times just to transfer a file.

Is suggesting a reboot a common trait amongst Marxists then, because if
it is then you ought to have a word with Microsoft, who seem to suggest
it as the solution to most of their problems?

Oddly enough, I'd never thought of Microsoft as a bunch of raving
communists, until now.

> What should the rebooting engineer do while the file is transferring
> in the Linux boot? Go have lunch?

Well it's not like he can do anything with the file until he's
transferred it, can he? His precious workflow has been terminally
interrupted, and he'll be forced to spend the next 10 minutes watching
pr0n anyway. He could do that just as easily with Linux as Windows or
the Mac, only with far less chance of catching something nasty.

> One of the reasons the company has two different platforms is the fact
> is was formed via a merger.

The perfect fusion of dazed Mac-heads and drooling Windroids.

Sounds like something from a Mary Shelley novel.

With all that "genius" expertise at your company, I'm surprised you
haven't heard of this revolutionary and bleeding edge technology called
.... a server.

Here's how it works: You install a proper operating system, like
GNU/Linux, then you install a type of software called groupware. Make
sure you buy the most expensive groupware package you can afford, even
though some of the best ones are free, otherwise other companies will
accuse you of being a bunch of commies.  This will then allow all the
drooling fuckwits in your company to store files, E-mails, contact
addresses, projects, underpants, and whatever else they want, either
privately or collaboratively, and access them from any computer on the
network, or even from home (I recommend OpenVPN).

You can then connect whatever tinker-toy storage gizmos your hapless
clients give you to the server, regardless of what filesystem they're
using, and transfer the contents to the server's HDD. You can even
script this to happen automatically, using udev rules, and have the
server notify the relevant Mactard or Windroid that the transfer is
complete, via a pretty status message in pastel colours, handled by the
groupware software.

Now the "engineers", "admins", your psychiatrist, the janitor and his
dog can all work either individually or collaboratively, using any
client system, running any OS, from any location, and have access to any
company data (permission pending), on any storage device, formatted with
any filesystem. Your "engineer's" workstation can blow up in a puff of
blue smoke, raining little chunks of Apple shrapnel all over his
tastefully decorated office, and he won't lose any of his client's data,
or even need to stop working, if he can find another client machine to
work from.

Does that sound like something you'd be interested in, or is it too
"complex" for you?

At this point, I'm not sure if I should recommend a really expensive
server, like the one I (supposedly a "Marxist") recently purchased for
around 10 grand, or something you can pick up on eBay for peanuts, as
you seem to be rather ambivalent about spending money. On the one hand,
you complain about expensive licenses, but on the other you think people
who prefer Free Software are "Marxists", so I don't really know what to
recommend, other than possibly a lobotomy. 

But hey, if you're happy enough supporting convicted criminals like
Microsoft, by being a guinea pig for their experimental, proprietary,
patent-encumbered monopolyware, and entrusting your paying clients' data
to toy gadgets meant for digital cameras ... who am I to argue with you?

Good luck.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 41 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Homer stated in post 4661s7-i5q.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/24/10 9:44 PM:

> So what you're saying is, a video "engineer" can sit twiddling his
> thumbs for 10 minutes (interrupting his precious workflow), but he can't
> spend 60 seconds rebooting into a Live Linux CD or a dual-boot
> partition, to gain access to any device, of any capacity, using any
> filesystem, without needing to pay expensive license fees, or use
> experimental filesystems?
> 
> Bullshit.

The whole idea of suggesting one quit out of all running programs, reboot,
transfer some files, reboot again, and then re-open all programs and files
is, well, absurd.  Even if you are using an OS which remembers all of the
open programs and window placements, it is absurd.

All because you do not like a file system.

Really.  You are not making any sense.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

William Poaster wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT
>>>>
>>>> Note that "Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file
>>>> specification, and a license from Microsoft is required in order to
>>>> make and distribute exFAT implementations".
>>>>
>>>> Also note that, nonetheless, there are provisional implementations
>>>> available.
>>>
>>> And full implementations for Linux by Tuxera and Datalight.
>>>
>>> Not that it matters, after all, who exactly uses this proprietary;
>>> patented; lockin-in garbage from Microsoft anyway? Are there even
>>> any devices using this crap yet, that it'd cause "Justin" so many
>>> supposed "problems".
>>>
>>> Smells like bullshit to me.
>>>
>>> One thing's for sure: I'll never use that junk, regardless of the
>>> availability of Linux implementations. We've already got LogFS,
>>> UBIFS, and btrfs, with capacities up to 16 exabytes. If I live long
>>> enough to see manufacturers come up with SSDs that can exceed that
>>> size, let me know.
>>
>> You know why Microsoft created exFAT?  Because they let the FAT out
>> of the bag.  They need to float a new implementation and play the
>> royalties game properly this time.
>>
>> And poor fools like Justin take the bait, hook, line, and sinker.
>
> Well you know what W.C Fields said: Never Give a Sucker an Even Break.
>
At least you got one out of two...

> Or perhaps P.T. Barnum, who's credited with "There's a sucker born
> every minute".
>

P.T. Barnum never said that,  but it was said about P.T. Barnum customers... 
Also anyone who know history will know that Barnum was never credited with 
saying it. 

On Nov 25, 7:34=A0pm, "QuantumLeaper" <lea...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> William Poaster wrote:
> > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> >> Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
> >>> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>
> >>>> =A0 =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT
>
> >>>> Note that "Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file
> >>>> specification, and a license from Microsoft is required in order to
> >>>> make and distribute exFAT implementations".
>
> >>>> Also note that, nonetheless, there are provisional implementations
> >>>> available.
>
> >>> And full implementations for Linux by Tuxera and Datalight.
>
> >>> Not that it matters, after all, who exactly uses this proprietary;
> >>> patented; lockin-in garbage from Microsoft anyway? Are there even
> >>> any devices using this crap yet, that it'd cause "Justin" so many
> >>> supposed "problems".
>
> >>> Smells like bullshit to me.
>
> >>> One thing's for sure: I'll never use that junk, regardless of the
> >>> availability of Linux implementations. We've already got LogFS,
> >>> UBIFS, and btrfs, with capacities up to 16 exabytes. If I live long
> >>> enough to see manufacturers come up with SSDs that can exceed that
> >>> size, let me know.
>
> >> You know why Microsoft created exFAT? =A0Because they let the FAT out
> >> of the bag. =A0They need to float a new implementation and play the
> >> royalties game properly this time.
>
> >> And poor fools like Justin take the bait, hook, line, and sinker.
>
> > Well you know what W.C Fields said: Never Give a Sucker an Even Break.
>
> At least you got one out of two...
>
> > Or perhaps P.T. Barnum, who's credited with "There's a sucker born
> > every minute".
>
> P.T. Barnum never said that, =A0but it was said about P.T. Barnum custome=
rs...
> Also anyone who know history will know that Barnum was never credited wit=
h
> saying it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_minute
<quote>
In turn, Barnum's fellow circus owner and arch-rival Adam Forepaugh
attributed the quote to Barnum in a newspaper interview in an attempt
to discredit him. However, Barnum never denied making the quote. It is
said that he thanked Forepaugh for the free publicity he had given
him.
</quote>

In effect, Barnum didn't originate the quote, but was happy to take
ownership.

In article <4661s7-i5q.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org> 
wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Justin spake thusly:
> > In article <fmiur7-bar.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org> 
> > wrote:
> 
> [snip endless excuses about rebooting] 

I stopped reading here.
Clearly you have never worked a fill day in an actual environment where 
work is supposed to get done.
If you did, you would understand why rebooting three times is 
unreasonable.
Maybe someone else can explain to the comrade here why its a terrible 
non-solution.

Verily I say unto thee, that Justin mangled yet another Usenet article
with Apple's toy gizmos:
> In article <4661s7-i5q.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org>
> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Justin spake thusly:
>> > In article <fmiur7-bar.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org> 
>> > wrote:
^^^^

>> [snip endless excuses about rebooting] 
>
> I stopped reading here.

That may be a clue as to why you're so ignorant.

> Clearly you have never worked a fill day in an actual environment
> where work is supposed to get done.

I probably did more work in the first quarter of my life, than you will
in all of yours, especially given the inept tools you seem to be using
to accomplish the task.

> If you did, you would understand why rebooting three times is
> unreasonable.

I suggest you work on your basic arithmetic.

Windows -> Live CD
Live CD -> Windows

You could probably do that faster than the average time it takes to
crawl round the Windows desktop to launch your "killa appz".

But then if you'd actually read all of what you're responding to, you
would have seen the even more obvious and useful solution I suggested.

Although how useful /any/ solution is in conjunction with Windows, is
a matter of debate.

> Maybe someone else can explain to the comrade here why its a terrible
> non-solution.

Maybe one of your fellow Mactards can explain why Freedom is not
synonymous with Communism, despite your extremist opinion to the
contrary.

On second thoughts, perhaps you'd better try elsewhere.

Oh, and you still haven't fixed your broken newsreader. If you could
show me the sources, I'd happily do it for you.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 43 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Homer stated in post aio6s7-ql3.ln1@sky.matrix on 11/27/10 12:28 AM:

.... 
>> Maybe someone else can explain to the comrade here why its a terrible
>> non-solution.
> 
> Maybe one of your fellow Mactards can explain why Freedom is not
> synonymous with Communism, despite your extremist opinion to the
> contrary.

You are pushing the idea that property, at least some of it, should not be
owned but should, instead, be communal.  I can see where that would lead
people to believe you are a Communist or at least share many of the ideas
Communists hold (though Socialists and others often hold similar ideas).

Where you seem not to share ideals with many Communists is the idea of
distribution based on need - since your focus is on goods where replication
is essentially free, you believe everyone should be able to use these goods
as they see fit.

At the same time, you also support licenses of IP, at least from what I
know.  And that seems odd... and you have complained about people abusing
their use of OSS IP (plagiarism) which is also contradictory.

So you are not particularly consistent in your thoughts on this (or so it
seems - and despite repeated requests you cannot offer a reasoned
reconciliation).  And you are pushing for communal ownership of some
property... then whining when people tie this push of yours with Communism.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

In article <aio6s7-ql3.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org> 
wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Justin mangled yet another Usenet article
> with Apple's toy gizmos:
> > In article <4661s7-i5q.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Verily I say unto thee, that Justin spake thusly:
> >> > In article <fmiur7-bar.ln1@sky.matrix>, Homer <usenet@slated.org> 
> >> > wrote:
> ^^^^
> 
> >> [snip endless excuses about rebooting] 
> >
> > I stopped reading here.
> 
> That may be a clue as to why you're so ignorant.
> 
> > Clearly you have never worked a fill day in an actual environment
> > where work is supposed to get done.
> 
> I probably did more work in the first quarter of my life, than you will
> in all of yours, especially given the inept tools you seem to be using
> to accomplish the task.

I will concede that point - you probably did work harder because of your 
refusal to try something that is clearly easier.
There's a saying, "Work smarter, not harder."

On Nov 24, 8:46=A0am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Homer wrote:

> >Since when do filesystems need to be "proprietary and closed" in order
> >to support security labels?

Just because they call it a "Security label" doesn't mean that it will
make anything more secure.  It might even be like that UUID in
ActiveDirectory that is supposedly for security - but lets Microsoft
access ALL information on ANY active Directory, including all users,
passwords, machines, and even permissions.  And it's read and write.

> That's like the same FUD the MSBBC's Ashley
> >Highfield was slinging when he claimed "if you have DRM how can you have
> >it open source? Because open source people will be able to find out how
> >it works and get round it".

There are DRM packages like totem and amerok that use the DRM, honor
DRM commitments and requirements, and are still published as open
source.  But one of the additional license terms is that you can't
disable the DRM capabilities.

> >http://www.links.org/?p=3D269

> I think we've all seen this same FUD leveled against Linux itself,
> where some ignorant twit claims that the source being open makes it
> more vulnerable to attack.

And yet the opposite has been shown to be true.  The success of BSD
Unix, BSD Sockets, Apache, MySQL, PERL, PHP, FireFox, OpenOffice, and
hundreds of other open source applications used in routers, firewalls,
gateways, embedded devices, appliances, severs, and even user
interface devices - has shown that Open Source is a very practical
strategy.  So practical in fact, that companies like IBM, Oracle, SAP,
PeopleSoft, and 24 of the top 25 software companies in the world have
now made Open Source Software a strategic part of their product
offerings.

Even Microsoft has tried to cash in on Open Source, but the license
terms are too restrictive for those who don't want to spend the rest
of their careers programming exclusively for Microsoft.  Especially
since Microsoft has a nasty track record of putting it's more
successful competitors out of business with third-rate knock-offs.

Much like IBM tried to do 30 years ago.

> >In other shocking news, AES has been cracked, because there are Open
> >Sauce=AE implementations of it.

DES and AES can be cracked, if you have the right information, for
example, you know details about headers, or actual content.  This is
why public/private keys are used to pass newly generated keys on a
regular basis.  Because you are sending a very small key using the
other key, and the key is totally random, it's pretty difficult to
derive the information needed to crack the public/private keys using
typical brute force or pattern hacks.  On the other hand, if you get
your public and private keys from a "Trusted Certificate Authority"
such as Verisign, Microsoft, or any other corporate source - these
companies can function as unpaid informants - giving your private keys
to law enforcement - with or without a court order and warrant.

Since the first certificates were established, there have been
proposals to have the postal service issue public keys.  The problem
is that if a government agency issues the certificates, then the law
enforcement agencies MUST get court orders.

> >Or ... not.

When DES was declassified, it was because the Navy assumed that the
Russians had already cracked the code.  It was later that they learned
that the Walkers had been selling the keys.  Ironically, the NSA in
1994 vigorously fought encryption of financial transactions using
triple-des - because the trivial extension made it nearly impossible
to crack the code, and the technique could be extended.

> "OSS is far more likely to break standards because of the lack of
> formal acceptance tests" =A0- =A0"True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

Actually, OSS is often used as the reference model on which formal
acceptance tests are based.  There are also standard shell script
based tests which can be used to validate both OSS clients and
servers, and proprietary clients and servers.

In fact, the extremely tight coupling of graphical interfaces to most
Microsoft implementations - to protect Microsoft's monopoly power -
make it much harder to do formal acceptance testing - especially
testing for race conditions, deadlocks, and performance bottlenecks.

In many cases, Windows server implementation defects such as those
race conditions, deadlocks, and bottlenecks, may not manifest
themselves until the worst possible time - peak loads in production
environments.  The issue is so common that it doesn't even make the
newspapers or industry publications.

On the other hand, when Linux or Unix fails, it's usually headline
news on most of the major cable networks, newspapers, and magazines.
Even though UNIX or Linux may not be mentioned specifically by name.

But then again - when a problem is found on Linux - it's usually fixed
right away.  On the other hand, Microsoft has vulnerabilities that
have been published and well-known for decades - and Microsoft's
"solution" was issue a "liability patch" that protected the system,
but disabled popular strategic features.  Of course, corporations
would back out the patch - assuming liability for any damages as a
result.

On Nov 23, 6:29=A0am, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:

> Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:

> You know why Microsoft created exFAT? =A0Because they let the FAT out of =
the
> bag. =A0They need to float a new implementation and play the royalties ga=
me
> properly this time.

The royalties game, the license game, and the ability to restrict the
actions of developers who attempt to use it - to Microsoft platform
exclusively.  For example, if you accept the terms of the Microsoft
licenses, you can NEVER contribute source code to Linux or most non-
Microsoft or multi-platform applications.  If you accept a Microsoft
license without consulting a lawyer, you could be sent to federal
prison for contributing code to Linux or other OSS projects.

> And poor fools like Justin take the bait, hook, line, and sinker.


> If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- Art Hoppe

In article 
<26ddb4e9-1268-44ba-90e2-21c33eef03d5@m35g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
 Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 23, 6:29�am, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> 
> > Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:
> 
> > You know why Microsoft created exFAT? �Because they let the FAT out of the
> > bag. �They need to float a new implementation and play the royalties game
> > properly this time.
> 
> The royalties game, the license game, and the ability to restrict the
> actions of developers who attempt to use it - to Microsoft platform
> exclusively.  For example, if you accept the terms of the Microsoft
> licenses, you can NEVER contribute source code to Linux or most non-
> Microsoft or multi-platform applications.  If you accept a Microsoft
> license without consulting a lawyer, you could be sent to federal
> prison 

Wrong.
If anything Microsoft would be able to sue another company for breach of 
contract.  No federal law is broken in that case.
At least in the US it would be a civil case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract

Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
> On Nov 24, 8:46 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Homer wrote:
>>> 
>>> Since when do filesystems need to be "proprietary and closed" in
>>> order to support security labels?
>
> Just because they call it a "Security label" doesn't mean that it will
> make anything more secure.  It might even be like that UUID in
> ActiveDirectory that is supposedly for security - but lets Microsoft
> access ALL information on ANY active Directory, including all users,
> passwords, machines, and even permissions.  And it's read and write.

Of course there's a vast difference between what Microsoft describes as
"security" and what ... well, everyone else does.

> DES and AES can be cracked, if you have the right information

Theoretically.

But the sources to the software is not the right information, so anyone
claiming Free Software is incompatible with any security measures,
including DRM, is simply lying.

The basis of security is that the effort required to breach it should
greatly exceed the value of the results, or that the time required to
breach it greatly exceeds the relevance of the results.

Given enough time and effort, all security measures can be breached, but
hopefully not before that which is being protected has become obsolete.

Access to the sources will have no impact on that.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 44 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> writes:

> On Nov 24, 8:46 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Homer wrote:
>
>> >Since when do filesystems need to be "proprietary and closed" in order
>> >to support security labels?
>
> Just because they call it a "Security label" doesn't mean that it will
> make anything more secure.  It might even be like that UUID in
> ActiveDirectory that is supposedly for security - but lets Microsoft
> access ALL information on ANY active Directory, including all users,
> passwords, machines, and even permissions.  And it's read and write.

Still propagating myths and lies eh Rexx. Not even Creepy Chris shills
your posts anymore. You have become an embarrassment to all.

Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> writes:

> On Nov 23, 6:29 am, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>
>> Homer pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> You know why Microsoft created exFAT?  Because they let the FAT out of the
>> bag.  They need to float a new implementation and play the royalties game
>> properly this time.
>
> The royalties game, the license game, and the ability to restrict the
> actions of developers who attempt to use it - to Microsoft platform
> exclusively.  For example, if you accept the terms of the Microsoft
> licenses, you can NEVER contribute source code to Linux or most non-
> Microsoft or multi-platform applications.  If you accept a Microsoft
> license without consulting a lawyer, you could be sent to federal
> prison for contributing code to Linux or other OSS projects.

You are, of course, a liar.

Rex Ballard pulled this Usenet face plant:

> In fact, the extremely tight coupling of graphical interfaces to most
> Microsoft implementations - to protect Microsoft's monopoly power -
> make it much harder to do formal acceptance testing - especially
> testing for race conditions, deadlocks, and performance bottlenecks.

Depends.  If they're smart, they'll create an engine, and provide both a GUI
and a command-line wrapper for it.

> In many cases, Windows server implementation defects such as those
> race conditions, deadlocks, and bottlenecks, may not manifest
> themselves until the worst possible time - peak loads in production
> environments.  The issue is so common that it doesn't even make the
> newspapers or industry publications.

Everyone knows (and most accept) that Microsoft software is prone to
issues.

> On the other hand, when Linux or Unix fails, it's usually headline
> news on most of the major cable networks, newspapers, and magazines.
> Even though UNIX or Linux may not be mentioned specifically by name.

Oh, the Microsoft boys won't let it slip, that's for sure.

> But then again - when a problem is found on Linux - it's usually fixed
> right away.  On the other hand, Microsoft has vulnerabilities that
> have been published and well-known for decades - and Microsoft's
> "solution" was issue a "liability patch" that protected the system,
> but disabled popular strategic features.  Of course, corporations
> would back out the patch - assuming liability for any damages as a
> result.

So much for the "one throat to choke" theory.

-- 
Inspiration without perspiration is usually sterile.