Re: Comportement bizarre clé usb fat32

Le 21/12/2023 à 19:35, Basile Starynkevitch a écrit : Est-ce que le hub USB est alimenté par la carte mère (çàd par le port USB de celui-ci); ou bien a-t-il une alimentation séparée? Si le hub a son alimenation, est-elle allumée après le PC? Que donnent les commandes lsusb et dmesg (sous

Re: Comportement bizarre clé usb fat32

On 12/21/23 15:45, Fabien Dubois wrote: Bonjour, J'ai depuis quelque temps un comportement bizarre de mes hub usb 3. Lorsque je branche une clé win, fat32, elle n'est pas vue. Il faut que je déconnecte et reconnecte le hub au port usb de la cm et là tout va bien. Comportement avec deux hub

Comportement bizarre clé usb fat32

Bonjour, J'ai depuis quelque temps un comportement bizarre de mes hub usb 3. Lorsque je branche une clé win, fat32, elle n'est pas vue. Il faut que je déconnecte et reconnecte le hub au port usb de la cm et là tout va bien. Comportement avec deux hub usb différents, sur les différents ports

Re : Re: Alternative à la FAT32 ou l'exFAT

Le vendredi 4 novembre 2022 à 10:23, didier gaumet a écrit : > C'est de pire en pire ma distraction: il m'a fallu le message de Marc > pour me rendre compte que j'avais lu le message de Benoît en en laissant > la moitié de côté: la carte SD sur un appareil photo, ce qui rend mon > message

Re: Alternative à la FAT32 ou l'exFAT

Le 04/11/2022 à 10:13, Marc Leprêtre a écrit : Bonjour, que les fichiers qui proviennent d'un appareil photo, n'aient pas de droit d'accès est tout à fait normal. Ce n'est pas un problème car lorsqu'ils seront copiés sur un disque dur externe, formaté avec un système de fichier qui les gère -

Re: Alternative à la FAT32 ou l'exFAT

Le 03/11/2022 à 22:07, benoit a écrit : Bonjour à tou·te·s Quel est le système de fichier libre d'origine (et pas libre pour échéance de brevet), pour remplacer la FAT32 ? C'est pour le disque dur externe de mes photos qui viennent de la carte SD(formatée en FAT) de mon appareil photo, les

Alternative à la FAT32 ou l'exFAT

Bonjour à tou·te·s Quel est le système de fichier libre d'origine (et pas libre pour échéance de brevet), pour remplacer la FAT32 ? C'est pour le disque dur externe de mes photos qui viennent de la carte SD(formatée en FAT) de mon appareil photo, les fichiers n'ont pas de droit d'accès. Pour

Re: Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

stop spamung me asshole Me Maw

Re: Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

requesting removal of spyware

Re: Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

i would like to request any and all media associated with the following: Any and all Parties who contributed to, participated it, and or redistributed the following in question; any and all media , including but not limited to: recordings ; audio and or video, text messages, phone calls,

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

>> Every time you have to reboot, it means your OS has somewhat failed you. > i don't think that at all. remember that each person can > have different preferences, requirements and expectations. That's why I wrote "have to". Of course, if you choose to reboot it, it's not you OS's fault. >

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

On Wed 05 Feb 2020 at 22:54:33 (-0500), Michael Stone wrote: > On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 07:33:38PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > > On Wed 05 Feb 2020 at 15:59:27 (-0500), Michael Stone wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:43:37PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > On Wed 05 Feb 2020 at 09:00:41

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

Stefan Monnier wrote: >>> PS: The only problem with LVM names is that Linux doesn't let you >>> rename a volume group while it's active (at least last time I tried), >>> which makes it painful to rename the volume group in which lives your >>> root partition. >> How painful is it to dd a live cd,

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 07:33:38PM -0600, David Wright wrote: On Wed 05 Feb 2020 at 15:59:27 (-0500), Michael Stone wrote: On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:43:37PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Wed 05 Feb 2020 at 09:00:41 (-0500), Michael Stone wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 07:04:16PM -0500,

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

On Wed 05 Feb 2020 at 16:47:13 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:43:37PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > > I don't suppose either of us will meet a UUID collision in our > > lifetimes, and it's obviously a sensible scheme to use where there > > are large numbers of

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

On Wed 05 Feb 2020 at 15:59:27 (-0500), Michael Stone wrote: > On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:43:37PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > > On Wed 05 Feb 2020 at 09:00:41 (-0500), Michael Stone wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 07:04:16PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > While I'm sure this can be

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 22:19:25 -0500 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > How painful is it to dd a live cd, boot from it and rename? > > Very. It's called "downtime". > Every time you have to reboot, it means your OS has somewhat failed > you. > > > Stefan > You are absolutely right!

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

> Usually a UUID collision is a result of a subtle mistake, like cloning > a disk and then trying to mount a file system by UUID while the clone > is still attached. At least, that's the first scenario I can think of. I wouldn't call it a "subtle mistake". Instead it's what *always* happens

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:43:37PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > I don't suppose either of us will meet a UUID collision in our > lifetimes, and it's obviously a sensible scheme to use where there > are large numbers of commoditised objects to name. Usually a UUID collision is a result of a subtle

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:43:37PM -0600, David Wright wrote: On Wed 05 Feb 2020 at 09:00:41 (-0500), Michael Stone wrote: On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 07:04:16PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > While I'm sure this can be managed by explicitly setting UUIDs, I've > found it much more pleasant to

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

On Wed 05 Feb 2020 at 09:00:41 (-0500), Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 07:04:16PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > Me too, so I usually label the permanent stuff at least. UUID's can and > > > > will change for no detectable reason. > > > For those reading along or finding this

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

>>What he meant is that filesystem UUIDs are (re)created automatically >>based on a heuristic of what it means for a filesystem to be "the same". > You understand that he didn't actually say that, right? This seems like your > own personal bugaboo instead. Definitely. > I dislike using names

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 07:04:16PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: Me too, so I usually label the permanent stuff at least. UUID's can and will change for no detectable reason. For those reading along or finding this in search results: no, filesystem UUIDs don't change for no detectable reason.

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

>>> Me too, so I usually label the permanent stuff at least. UUID's can and >>> will change for no detectable reason. >> For those reading along or finding this in search results: no, filesystem >> UUIDs don't change for no detectable reason. Don't implement anything based >> on this theory. > >

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

>> PS: The only problem with LVM names is that Linux doesn't let you >> rename a volume group while it's active (at least last time I tried), >> which makes it painful to rename the volume group in which lives your >> root partition. > How painful is it to dd a live cd, boot from it and rename?

Re: Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

> PS: The only problem with LVM names is that Linux doesn't let you > rename a volume group while it's active (at least last time I tried), > which makes it painful to rename the volume group in which lives your > root partition. > How painful is it to dd a live cd, boot from it and rename? 3

Why I don't like UUIDs (Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32)

>> Me too, so I usually label the permanent stuff at least. UUID's can and >> will change for no detectable reason. > For those reading along or finding this in search results: no, filesystem > UUIDs don't change for no detectable reason. Don't implement anything based > on this theory. What he

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Tuesday 04 February 2020 15:03:54 David Wright wrote: > On Tue 04 Feb 2020 at 11:48:10 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Tuesday 04 February 2020 08:51:47 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > >> I bet some of his RT patches caused a mess > > > > > > > > Nope, I just needed to reboot. > > > > > >

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Tue 04 Feb 2020 at 11:48:10 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Tuesday 04 February 2020 08:51:47 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > >> I bet some of his RT patches caused a mess > > > > > > Nope, I just needed to reboot. > > > > "Needed to reboot" in this context means "need to work around a bug". > >

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Tuesday 04 February 2020 08:51:47 Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> I bet some of his RT patches caused a mess > > > > Nope, I just needed to reboot. > > "Needed to reboot" in this context means "need to work around a bug". > I have no idea whether that bug has anything to with the RT patches, > but

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 11:24:56AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 11:06:10AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Me too, so I usually label the permanent stuff at least. UUID's can and > > will change for no detectable reason. > > For those reading along or finding this in

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 11:06:10AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: Me too, so I usually label the permanent stuff at least. UUID's can and will change for no detectable reason. For those reading along or finding this in search results: no, filesystem UUIDs don't change for no detectable reason.

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Tuesday 04 February 2020 07:47:58 songbird wrote: > Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Monday 03 February 2020 23:56:47 David Wright wrote: > >> Well, at least one of my guesses was correct. > >> > >:) > > > > FWIW, the reboot fixed the can't mount, both partitions on this sd > > card now mount

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Tue 04 Feb 2020 at 07:47:58 (-0500), songbird wrote: > Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Monday 03 February 2020 23:56:47 David Wright wrote: > > > >> Well, at least one of my guesses was correct. > > > >:) > > > > FWIW, the reboot fixed the can't mount, both partitions on this sd card > > now mount

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 03 February 2020 23:56:47 David Wright wrote: > >> Well, at least one of my guesses was correct. > >:) > > FWIW, the reboot fixed the can't mount, both partitions on this sd card > now mount normally, but are on /dev/sde now since the were found at > bootup. I've

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

>> I bet some of his RT patches caused a mess > Nope, I just needed to reboot. "Needed to reboot" in this context means "need to work around a bug". I have no idea whether that bug has anything to with the RT patches, but the fact that rebooting avoided the problem is at least no proof that the

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Tuesday 04 February 2020 02:21:32 deloptes wrote: > Dan Ritter wrote: > > There's no FAT filesystem there. It might be corrupted, it might > > actually be on /dev/sdf with a bogus partition table. > > I bet some of his RT patches caused a mess Nope, I just needed to reboot. Cheers, Gene

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

Dan Ritter wrote: > There's no FAT filesystem there. It might be corrupted, it might > actually be on /dev/sdf with a bogus partition table. I bet some of his RT patches caused a mess

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Monday 03 February 2020 23:56:47 David Wright wrote: > Well, at least one of my guesses was correct. :) FWIW, the reboot fixed the can't mount, both partitions on this sd card now mount normally, but are on /dev/sde now since the were found at bootup. I've had this happen before, back

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Monday 03 February 2020 23:56:47 David Wright wrote: > On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 16:20:59 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Monday 03 February 2020 14:15:14 David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 14:02:31 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > On Monday 03 February 2020 13:31:16 David

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Monday 03 February 2020 21:34:46 songbird wrote: > Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Monday 03 February 2020 13:17:04 Dan Ritter wrote: > >> Gene Heskett wrote: > >> > Greetings all; > >> > > >> > I want to look at its directory structure because its different, > >> > and I'd like to deduce how to

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 16:20:59 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 03 February 2020 14:15:14 David Wright wrote: > > On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 14:02:31 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > On Monday 03 February 2020 13:31:16 David Wright wrote: > > > > On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 12:40:20 (-0500), Gene

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 03 February 2020 13:17:04 Dan Ritter wrote: > >> Gene Heskett wrote: >> > Greetings all; >> > >> > I want to look at its directory structure because its different, and >> > I'd like to deduce how to generate it in a kernel make for a newer, >> > preempt-rt kernel.

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 03 February 2020 14:07:46 David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 13:57:08 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > On Monday 03 February 2020 13:17:04 Dan Ritter wrote: > > > > Actual error message, please. > > > > > > gene@coyote:~/PublicA/pi-buster$ sudo

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Monday 03 February 2020 14:15:14 David Wright wrote: > On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 14:02:31 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Monday 03 February 2020 13:31:16 David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 12:40:20 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > I want to look at its directory structure

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Monday 03 February 2020 14:07:46 David Wright wrote: > On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 13:57:08 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Monday 03 February 2020 13:17:04 Dan Ritter wrote: > > > Actual error message, please. > > > > gene@coyote:~/PublicA/pi-buster$ sudo mount -tvfat /dev/sdf1 > > /media/sdf1

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 14:02:31 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 03 February 2020 13:31:16 David Wright wrote: > > On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 12:40:20 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > I want to look at its directory structure because its different, and > > > I'd like to deduce how to generate

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 13:57:08 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 03 February 2020 13:17:04 Dan Ritter wrote: > > Actual error message, please. > gene@coyote:~/PublicA/pi-buster$ sudo mount -tvfat /dev/sdf1 /media/sdf1 > mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdf1, >

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Monday 03 February 2020 13:31:16 David Wright wrote: > On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 12:40:20 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > I want to look at its directory structure because its different, and > > I'd like to deduce how to generate it in a kernel make for a newer, > > preempt-rt kernel. > > Yes, I

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Monday 03 February 2020 13:17:04 Dan Ritter wrote: > Gene Heskett wrote: > > Greetings all; > > > > I want to look at its directory structure because its different, and > > I'd like to deduce how to generate it in a kernel make for a newer, > > preempt-rt kernel. > > Actual error message,

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

On Mon 03 Feb 2020 at 12:40:20 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > I want to look at its directory structure because its different, and I'd > like to deduce how to generate it in a kernel make for a newer, > preempt-rt kernel. Yes, I can't mount it either, because I'm not running stretch. >

Re: can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

Gene Heskett wrote: > Greetings all; > > I want to look at its directory structure because its different, and I'd > like to deduce how to generate it in a kernel make for a newer, > preempt-rt kernel. Actual error message, please. sudo parted -l sudo mkdir /mnt/tmp sudo mount /dev/sdf1

can't mount sdf1 in stretch, gparted claims its fat32

Greetings all; I want to look at its directory structure because its different, and I'd like to deduce how to generate it in a kernel make for a newer, preempt-rt kernel. Thanks for any enlightenment. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap,

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

gt; > > Auto-selecting FAT32 for large filesystem ...and overlooked this: > > > # mkfs.fat -F 16 -i 20161231 -n PETROLEUM2G -r 2000 -v /dev/sdb1 > > This was intended to create a FAT16 filesystem... you are right. [...] > > This is very interesting! Seems FAT32 has a limit

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

ore would fit until I found this out. I don't > > know if the limit got expanded for fat32 and msdos 7 > > Will nobody read the darn thread before posting half-wrong statements? > And possibly check their own facts against reliable sources? > > The limit does not come f

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

gt; expanded for fat32 and msdos 7 Will nobody read the darn thread before posting half-wrong statements? And possibly check their own facts against reliable sources? The limit does not come from the OS, it is coded in the "superblock" of the filesystem. It can be configured when c

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

msdos 6.22 which was fat16 had a limit of 112 files in top level directory. Once I tried putting more than that on a floppy disk and couldn't figure why no more would fit until I found this out. I don't know if the limit got expanded for fat32 and msdos 7 but since Microsoft has been devoted

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

> > whole devices). Then: > > Thanks for trying to replicate. Didn't know about the device thing. Will > try when I've an USB stick which isn't my main backup :) > > > # mkfs.fat -i 20161231 -n PETROLEUM2G -r 2000 -v /dev/sdb1 > > mkfs.fat 3.0.27 (2014-11-12) >

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

e thing. Will try when I've an USB stick which isn't my main backup :) > # mkfs.fat -i 20161231 -n PETROLEUM2G -r 2000 -v /dev/sdb1 > mkfs.fat 3.0.27 (2014-11-12) > Auto-selecting FAT32 for large filesystem OK, seems FAT32 has bigger limits (and it's actually selected when the medium is bi

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

to...@tuxteam.de schreef op 31-12-2016 10:35: On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Xen wrote: do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41: >I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, but >never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one of their "Features&

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

On Sat 31 Dec 2016 at 10:35:02 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Xen wrote: > > do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41: > > > > >I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, but > > >never on Li

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

On Saturday 31 December 2016 09:16:10 Richard Owlett wrote: > On 12/31/2016 7:49 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Saturday 31 December 2016 08:01:15 Nicolas George wrote: > >> Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit : > >>> From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system,

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit : > > Think a little more about it: it is a limitation of the format, not > > the operating system. If an operating system extends the format, it is > > no longer compatible with the rest of the world, and then there is no > > reason to use FAT

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 02:01:15PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit : > > From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is > > correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

On 12/31/2016 7:49 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: On Saturday 31 December 2016 08:01:15 Nicolas George wrote: Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit : From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the now several

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

On Saturday 31 December 2016 08:01:15 Nicolas George wrote: > Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit : > > From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is > > correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the now several > > non-M$ versions of dos. I saw an

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

Le primidi 11 nivôse, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit : > From personal experience decades ago, on a dos3.2 system, this is > correct. But I can't testify about the newer, or the now several non-M$ > versions of dos. I saw an announcement of yet another dos release just a > couple weeks back. I

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

On Saturday 31 December 2016 04:35:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Xen wrote: > > do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41: > > >I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, > > > but never on Linux. I

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 07:38:18AM +0100, Xen wrote: > do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41: > > >I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, but > >never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

do...@mail.com schreef op 26-12-2016 3:41: I encountered this many times on windowz FAT32 in a non-root dir, but never on Linux. I suspect that it was/is one of their "Features". The said "Feature" still was there when using ntfs in XP if I remember correctly. Perha

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 13:46:25 +0100 Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > > As I recall that there is (or used to be?) a limit on the number of > > files in the > > top level directory of a FAT32 (or 16?) partition / drive. If you > > needed to > > hav

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory

On Thursday, December 08, 2016 12:49:42 PM Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 08 Dec 2016, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: ... > Ugh. Well, for FAT32, "it depends" on the implementation, but it is not > unlimited. > > Even for FAT12/16, the number of entries in

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > Does anybody else (reading this) recall that, and recall more details, like > the maximum number of files and which FAT systems (32 or 16) this applied to, > and, further, is it still a limit on FAT32? Ugh. Well, for FAT32, &q

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 07:42:33 -0500 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: >I've been googling to try to answer this question, so far, no luck. > >I recall that there is (or used to be?) a limit on the number of files in the >top level director

Re: OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory

L'octidi 18 frimaire, an CCXXV, rhkra...@gmail.com a écrit : > I recall that there is (or used to be?) a limit on the number of files in the > top level directory of a FAT32 (or 16?) partition / drive. If you needed to > have more files in a directory, you had to create a sub

OT?: FAT32(/16?) Question: Max. files in top level directory

I've been googling to try to answer this question, so far, no luck. I recall that there is (or used to be?) a limit on the number of files in the top level directory of a FAT32 (or 16?) partition / drive. If you needed to have more files in a directory, you had to create a subdirectory

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On Sat, 2016-11-12 at 17:19 +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Saturday 12 November 2016 15:45:28 Brian wrote: > > The behaviour of your aptitude is presumably because you have adjusted > > the default behaviour in some way. The new behaviour is not a bug. > > No, I haven't. This is a temporary

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On Saturday 12 November 2016 15:45:28 Brian wrote: > The behaviour of your aptitude is presumably because you have adjusted > the default behaviour in some way. The new behaviour is not a bug. No, I haven't. This is a temporary machine, which I have not been using long. I have adjusted very

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On Sat 12 Nov 2016 at 13:45:38 +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 11 November 2016 21:58:58 Brian wrote: > > Not installing a recommended package on a default Debian would be a bug. > > Aptitude on my current almost vanilla temporary Jessie install doesn't > install > recommends. But it

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On Friday 11 November 2016 21:58:58 Brian wrote: > Not installing a recommended package on a default Debian would be a bug. Aptitude on my current almost vanilla temporary Jessie install doesn't install recommends. But it makes a big point of telling me a) that they are recommended and b) that

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 16:45:40 (-0800), Joseph Loo wrote: > On 11/11/2016 04:39 PM, David Wright wrote: > > On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 18:36:15 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Friday, November 11, 2016 04:58:41 PM Pascal Hambourg wrote: > >>> Le 11/11/2016 à 22:17, Thomas Schmitt a écrit : >

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On 11/11/2016 04:39 PM, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 18:36:15 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Friday, November 11, 2016 04:58:41 PM Pascal Hambourg wrote: >>> Le 11/11/2016 à 22:17, Thomas Schmitt a écrit : The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 18:36:15 (-0500), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, November 11, 2016 04:58:41 PM Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > Le 11/11/2016 à 22:17, Thomas Schmitt a écrit : > > > The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical > > > ones in one of the primary partitions.

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

rhkra...@gmail.com composed on 2016-11-11 18:36 (UTC-0500): Pascal Hambourg wrote: Thomas Schmitt composed: > The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical > ones in one of the primary partitions. Huh ? The number of logical partitions is unlimited. Ok, just to be

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On Friday, November 11, 2016 04:58:41 PM Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 11/11/2016 à 22:17, Thomas Schmitt a écrit : > > The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical > > ones in one of the primary partitions. > > Huh ? The number of logical partitions is unlimited. Ok, just to be

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 23:22:36 (+0100), Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > i wrote: > > > The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical > > > ones in one of the primary partitions. > > Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > Huh ? The number of logical partitions is unlimited. > > You are

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

Hi, i wrote: > > The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical > > ones in one of the primary partitions. Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Huh ? The number of logical partitions is unlimited. You are right. Must have been some mislead memory from old experience with partitioning

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 20:18:59 (+), Brian wrote: > On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 20:53:17 +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > > > Le primidi 21 brumaire, an CCXXV, David Wright a écrit : > > > Any reference. You see, I find label a very slippery word. > > > You can label a disk at almost every level: a

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

Le 11/11/2016 à 22:17, Thomas Schmitt a écrit : The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical ones in one of the primary partitions. Huh ? The number of logical partitions is unlimited.

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 15:03:57 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > The problem was missing mtools. When I had used Synaptic to install Gparted > it had pulled in dostools but not mtools. Is that a "bug" or "annoyance"? Not installing a recommended package on a default Debian would be a bug. Not

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On 11/11/2016 9:38 PM, Doug wrote: /snip/ Gparted needs external software to enable some features. According to , mtools is required to change the label on a FAT filesystem. I wonder if there is a LIVE disk that includes the various external

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

/snip/ Gparted needs external software to enable some features. According to , mtools is required to change the label on a FAT filesystem. I wonder if there is a LIVE disk that includes the various external software files? It would be handy to have

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

Hi, David Wright wrote: > So I'm unsure what you mean by a partition label, where it's > stored, and how it differs from a filesystem label. See "Partition name (36 UTF-16LE code units)" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table#Partition_entries This describes the GPT partition

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

Agent GoFlex Drive" #2 is extended partition for remainder of drive #5 is fat32 62.5 GiB [31.5 GiB used] with no label I successfully mounted partitions 1 and 5. Both are readable and contain files from unknown Windows machines. On my Windows Desktop hardware C:\Documents and Settings\u

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On 11/11/2016 7:30 PM, Doug wrote: On 11/11/2016 01:07 PM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 11/11/2016 à 16:47, Richard Owlett a écrit : Partitions: #1 is ntfs 293 GiB [146 GiB used] labeled "FreeAgent GoFlex Drive" #2 is extended partition for remainder of drive #5 is fat32 62.5 GiB

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On 11/11/2016 01:42 PM, Brian wrote: On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 19:30:51 -0600, Doug wrote: On 11/11/2016 01:07 PM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: /snip/ Gparted needs external software to enable some features. According to , mtools is required to change

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 14:45:16 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/11/2016 1:22 PM, David Wright wrote: > >On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 18:59:29 (+0100), Nicolas George wrote: > >>Le primidi 21 brumaire, an CCXXV, Brian a écrit : > >>>gparted for labelling a partition is overkill. Use dosfslabel. > >>

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On 11/11/2016 1:22 PM, David Wright wrote: On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 18:59:29 (+0100), Nicolas George wrote: Le primidi 21 brumaire, an CCXXV, Brian a écrit : gparted for labelling a partition is overkill. Use dosfslabel. dosfslabel label will not label a partition, it will label a filesystem.

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

"FreeAgent GoFlex Drive" #2 is extended partition for remainder of drive #5 is fat32 62.5 GiB [31.5 GiB used] with no label I successfully mounted partitions 1 and 5. Both are readable and contain files from unknown Windows machines. On my Windows Desktop hardware C:\Documents and Set

Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 20:53:17 +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > Le primidi 21 brumaire, an CCXXV, David Wright a écrit : > > Any reference. You see, I find label a very slippery word. > > You can label a disk at almost every level: a sticky label, > > True, but not really relevant. > > > a

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >