Sharing files between Ubuntu 6.06 and Windows XP Pro - best disk format to use

[Ouattara Oumar Aziz]

Eric Dunbar a écrit :
> On 04/02/07, Felipe Alfaro Solana <felipe.alfaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/4/07, Ouattara Oumar Aziz <wattazoum at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Felipe Alfaro Solana a écrit :
>>>> On 2/4/07, Yagnesh Desai <ynd at lntenc.com> wrote:
>>>>> Eric;
>>>>>
>>>>> The most reliable option is to use the FAT32 file format.
>>>>> I am using it this way on my LAPTOP.
>>>> I guess that you mean "the easiest". FAT is anything but reliable.
>>>>
>>> Please, tell us why you think FAT isn't reliable.
>> It's patented,
> 
> Ideological. Doesn't have a direct bearing on reliability (and, any
> philosophical responses really belong on sounder).
> 
>> doesn't support transactions/atomic operations, uses an
>> antiquated and obsolete method to store metadata with very simple
>> redundancy (first FAT copy, second FAT copy), doesn't support
>> permissions./ACLs, maximum file size is limited to 4GB, its get
>> fragmented easily, tends to destroy the first few blocks of Flash/NAND
>> memories since the FAT table is stored at the very beginning of the
>> disk, etc.
>>
>> Other than that, FAT works pretty well for floppy disks, USB keys and
>> really small hard disks. For something, I would use a modern
>> filesystem.
> 
> The unfortunate thing (that I've managed to discover in my readings)
> is that it's the only file system that's got robust ("native") support
> by both Linux and Windows. NTFS, though superior to FAT is not fully
> supported by Linux yet nor is ext3fs supported natively by Windows.
> 

OUPS ! I should have read the whole thread :p . That's exactly what I 
said ;)