Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 18:45:46 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS(2) portable driver for other OS Message-ID: <20140202184546.1aa51b6f@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20140131150601.53ee40f4.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <CAFYkXj=xGbnVfJuBwXmj%2Bgu5gR7sWxk6o48rJ233N-=eRcTpyw@mail.gmail.com> <20140131150601.53ee40f4.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:06:01 +0100 Polytropon wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:41:13 +0100, CeDeROM wrote: > > Hello :-) > > > > Some time ago I have definitely moved from EXT2 to UFS2. This > > greatly improved my speed and stability on FreeBSD, but I somehow > > lost access and portability for other OS in "native" read-write > > mode. > > The lowest common denominator is msdosfs (DOS FAT) which is > usable in r/w nearly everywhere. If you require long file > names, you need the 16 bit version. This is commonly considered > the "typical solution" for the problem you're describing, even > though it doesn't really look any attractive because, as I > said, it's the _lowest_ common denominator where "lowest" is > determined by the inability of "Windows" products to be > willing to accept anything that isn't made, approved, certified > and sold by MICROS~1. :-) In FreeBSD 10 the new fuse ntfs is much better than any previous ntfs support. I use that for multimedia storage these days. So far it's worked just fine on FreeBSD, Windows and my Samsung TV - I don't have Linux but I doubt it's any worse. msdosfs may be more mature, but it's still an accident waiting to happen.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140202184546.1aa51b6f>