Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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+gu5gR7sWxk6o48rJ233N-=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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140202184546.1aa51b6f>