I think this is getting needlessly confrontational. What I mean about the filename restrictions is that people buy drives formatted as FAT, for all systems. So presumably they are running up against any filename restrictions regularly, both on Linux and Windows (and probably Mac OS). However, having just tested, I was able to use a large number of special characters, including ¬, £ and the greek letter η on my FAT formatted disk, which suggests to me that it's fairly powerful. What filename did it reject for you?
OK, I accept there are uses for >4GiB files. But even so, taking an image of your entire hard drive, including all programs and libraries, seems a bit odd. There are more advanced backup methods. I also accept that NTFS is not perfect for this purpose, although file ownership is not particularly important--what does the owner of a file matter to a different system with different users? What exactly do you propose? I don't know if it's possible to use a filesystem driver without installing something. I think people will continue to muddle through with FAT--it's tried and tested, and its limitations don't seem, to me, very limiting. Anyway, I don't think we're making any headway arguing. ***Could I ask anyone else reading this whether they think there is some merit in this idea.*** Should we: - Attempt to produce the system oss_test_launchpad describes, with a main ext partition and a FAT partition with drivers to allow other OSs to access the ext system? - Set the relevant defaults for formatting to FAT? - Do nothing (i.e. it's fine as is) -- Not ext2/ext3 drivers for other operating systems available when you format an external HDD or USB stick https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/237575 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
