back to article Rebellion sees Chromium reverse plans to dump EXT filesystem

The Chromium project decided that the EXT family of filesystems are surplus to requirements, but has bowed to pressure and signalled it is willing to reverse the decision. As detailed in this thread, the project's developers feel that as Chromium is intended for consumer devices, the ability to read external media formatted …

  1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Headmaster

    Anger is only now becoming apparent

    Any OS worth its salt is not karmically bound to whatever kind of filesystem. What's wrong with people?

    1. Rafael L.

      Take Linux, create a distro for profit then say f*ck you to the initial devs, community and supporters who may be using the filesystem. Hmm I hadn't grown up learning this kind of behavior is fair or laudable.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Holmes

        Not trying to take Google's side - but how many devs are really using Chrome OS in their work? I got a Chromebook and put Ubuntu and then Debian on it. Eventually my daughter wanted it for school and Chrome OS is fine for her. But for a developer? It seems like it's far too stripped down of an OS to get much real work done.

        1. Samuel Penn

          What has work to do with it? All my external USB drives are formatted ext3, and I watch videos from them on my Chromebox because it doesn't support NFS. Dropping ext would be a pain.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Take Linux, create a distro for profit then say f*ck you to the initial devs, community and supporters who may be using the filesystem."

        Er, I think that you'll find that they're perfectly entitled to do so. So long as they stick to the license terms and conditions (GPL2 in this case I think) then they in effect have the permission, nay, blessing of the original devs to do so.

        IF the initial devs somehow object to that then they should have expressed their views in advance by making it clear in the license terms and conditions. It's a bit rich to try doing so afterwards.

        "Hmm I hadn't grown up learning this kind of behavior is fair or laudable."

        Hmm, I bet you didn't grow up as a Linux kernel dev either, in which case you don't really have the right to speak on their behalf.

        1. solo

          Legal but unethical

          Who said anger amounts to suing. Anger comes out of disrespect as well.

          Also, when dropping support for a file system, it is essentially leaving out the legacy (not obsolete, mind you) programs in cold which hackers could have utilized in a new OS.

          "..Hmm, I bet you didn't grow up as a Linux kernel dev either.."

          And sorry, I bet you don't really have the right to speak on behalf of people of Iraq as well then.

        2. Rafael L.

          Rules, rules, rules.

          You missed the point, there's something beyond that, it's called good will.

      3. FutureShock999

        But you miss the entire point...ext file systems are basically not usable by anyone on a cloud-based net book with only plug-in USB FAT storage and non-ext internal drive. Basically, it is the hardware specs and use cases that pretty much make ext redundant. If you don't like that, then a Chromebook and Chrome OS are not for you. You can take the hardware and install Debian just fine, with ext. or you can simply buy a non-Chromebook laptop. But installing a set of software just to "honour the devs" seems really pretty silly. It is very much the same as not loading X-windows code on an embedded Linux controller system...

        1. Eddy Ito

          "You can take the hardware and install Debian just fine, with ext. or you can simply buy a non-Chromebook laptop."

          If one currently owns a Chromebook and use it with ext(n) formatted media, why should that person be forced to change the operating system because Google wants to drop support in a future automatic update? It really is saying "thanks for the cash, now go pound sand".

      4. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Actually it is. Try using a Mac with FAT, or Windows with ext - it'd probably be an achievement if it boots.

      And dropping ext support because they couldn't figure out a way to rename ext-formatted disks in the file explorer shows you the kind of brains they have behind Chrome, Chrome OS, and Android.

      1. bazza Silver badge

        @Dan55,

        "Actually it is. Try using a Mac with FAT..."

        Actually, trying to use a Mac with its own native HFS seems to require the occassional miracle to get it to boot. They seem to be quite capable of trashing their own filesystem without any external assistance whatsoever...

  2. NP-Hardass
    Alert

    Leadership

    I've never been terribly fond of the leadership at the Chromium browser and Chromium OS projects.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Leadership

      I never used them but find them necessary to raise the bar for Linux, Firefox and other community driven projects. Don't let our swords drop.

  3. Ole Juul

    Surplus

    The Chromium project is surplus to my requirements.

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Surplus

      Indeed.

      My Samsung Chromebook runs Debian from day one. I had to re-compile the kernel from git, because they had most linux filesystems removed from the original one. While it did have ext2-4, nfs (all versions), autofs, smbfs and in fact all network filesystems were missing.

      Yeah, I know - it is on purpose, so I use the Cloud.

      In any case, due to the abismally small drive it proved unusable for my needs so I am rebuilding it (with Debian, no f*** ChromeOS) as a travel notebook for one of the kids.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Surplus

        "In any case, due to the abismally small drive it proved unusable for my needs..."

        Well, that's not their fault. They've designed it to a price and made no promises beyond that design spec. If you consider the drive to be abismally small perhaps you should have bought a different computer in the first place?

        1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

          Re: Surplus

          Quote: Well, that's not their fault. They've designed it to a price and made no promises beyond that design spec

          They went a bit beyond that by making a deliberate and concerted effort to disable any possible means of accessing anything locally through any legacy protocol. NFS - boom. NFS4 - boom. SMBFS - boom. All taken behind the cattle truck in the siding and given a bullet in the back of the head. To add insult to injury the kernel in git is 3.4 which is known to have issues with some of these and without any of the later fixes for them.

          So, while the drive being abismally small is "design to spec", the rest is not. It is "cripple to marketing goal".

      2. Julian Bond

        Re: Surplus

        all network filesystems were missing.

        This is something that puzzles me greatly. I find it very strange that Chromebooks (Chrome-OS) can't support the typical home NAS. There does seem to be a project to integrate network file systems but it's happening very, very slowly. Which again is strange when this is mature stable tech in every linux distro.

        I also understand the logic of the control freakery around the boot process and stuff like Dev Mode, but I still think these things should be general purpose computers that can be booted into an alternate OS without jumping through hoops. So I'm glad that the hardware in chromebooks seems to be resurrecting the idea of the inexpensive netbook.

    2. jake Silver badge

      Re: Surplus

      Concur. But then the gooverse is surplus to my requirements.

      The silly-ass kids in charge are apparently clueless.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why on earth is this news?

    Why would an OS designed to work on devices with presumably USB connections or similar to external devices really need EXTx support? You generally don't use EXTn on them anyway.

    Perhaps RAM is restricted in some way on these things. I note that the xfs module on my laptop is around 680KB in size and the btrfs one is a jaw dropping 740KB. Nightmare! God only knows how big the ext ones would be.

    I can easily remember when RAM was £30 per 1MB and with some effort when it was priced in GDP.

    The world turns ...

    Cheers

    Jon

    1. bazza Silver badge

      Re: Why on earth is this news?

      "Why would an OS designed to work on devices with presumably USB connections or similar to external devices really need EXTx support? You generally don't use EXTn on them anyway."

      Indeed, and it's worth asking why no one does. A USB drive is expected to be a universal, plug it in anywhere and it works type of thing. The reason why an ext formatted USB drive breaks that is because the Linux/Android/*nix community hasn't really ever got round to doing a proper driver for ext (or whatever) for Windows.

      Oh I know there's a selection of them out there, commercial and open source. The open source ones all seem to be version 0.5, with no word as to whether one should ever dare use them in read/write mode. Clearly if that doesn't work properly then promoting it seems hardly worthwhile.

      The community should get serious about ext file system drivers for Windows (i.e. finished them to the point where they were acceptably trustworthy). The community (well, Google, Redhat and the other big players) could then promote them so that in the conciousness of all "Android/Linux = Oh yeah, I Have To Install That". Then they could ditch FAT altogether and save a bunch patent royalty cash owed to MS. At least one of those big players is a major online advertising outfit that regularly seeks to influence and inform the public.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Why on earth is this news?

        "The reason why an ext formatted USB drive breaks that is because the Linux/Android/*nix community hasn't really ever got round to doing a proper driver for ext (or whatever) for Windows."

        Or maybe that MS hasn't got round to it either.

      2. petur

        Re: Why on earth is this news?

        The reason why is probably because EXT isn't really suited for removable drives anyway, since the whole UID mess is tend to break when hopping between computers...

        I do use EXT on removable drives that are backup drives on one and the same system... but for moving stuff between systems? Nah...

        1. petur

          Re: Why on earth is this news?

          If you're going to downvote you might as well say why.... I don't think I've written anything that is factually wrong. EXT* has a problem where UID is a number that only makes sense on one system, and given the way distros assign UIDs often collides. So you're forced to make sure you write everthing with >0666 because AFAIK it's not easy/possible on ChromeOS to do the usual root bypass trick.

  5. channel extended

    Way to fix chrome?

    Seems as if there may be too many things to fix in ChromeOS. I use ext2 on my USB drives just to keep them from being used by MS people. l like to say"It's your system that it infected. Why can't you read a simple drive?" Since ext is not encumbered by patents they are just being lazy. :)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Way to fix chrome?

      "Seems as if there may be too many things to fix in ChromeOS. I use ext2 on my USB drives just to keep them from being used by MS people."

      Ha! If they borrow it they're going to be presented with a dialogue box offering to format it. You're more likely to get it back with a nice fresh FAT32 on it.

  6. G R Goslin

    A loss of style and functionality

    One of the things that draws me to Linux, and to Unix before that, was it's elegance and versatility. To a large extent to its sensible total separation of the user and machine functions, in contrast with MS, where everything is lumped together in a disorderly mish mash. Again, one of it's best features was it's ability to read and write to any other filing system. The way MS gained a lot of its supremacy was to totally ignore everyone else and insist you use their stuff. As with word processors. When they got sorted out most would read and write in others formats. Not MS. Use ours or go away. Having got the edge, they could lever out all the rest. I recently bought an Android device and was horrified to note that they seem to have dropped the elegance and reverted to the mish mash system. No doubt some will say otherwise, but that's how it looks to me

  7. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Practical reason

    ext3/4 seem *much much* more resilient to USB devices that like to drop of the bus now and then than FAT and somewhat more than NTFS.

  8. Michael Thibault

    Walled garden? Whic... what walled garden?

    It might help to think of it as a corral.

    1. Fluffy Bunny
      Angel

      Re: Walled garden? Whic... what walled garden?

      Think of a corral for cats.

      1. Tom 7

        Re: Walled garden? Whic... what walled garden?

        cat fish you mean?

  9. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    "I can easily remember when RAM was £30 per 1MB and with some effort when it was priced in GDP."

    I feel a Monty Python moment coming on ...

    I still have the receipt for four 1Mb sticks at £100 each ... I arranged a 'bulk' order with some mates so I got discount!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Happy

      £100 each pah, bet you didn't even have to solder it in...kids today.

  10. sabroni Silver badge

    Bit pointless

    arguing over the file system for an OS that's supposed to be all cloudy.

    1. Jonathan Richards 1

      Re: Bit pointless

      Yes, what he said. It's obvious that the more of your data is stored in the cloud providers network, the more it can be used to "improve your user experience" by piping you "relevant" ads. If you're storing your stuff locally, they can't mine it. Not easily, anyway!

      In my experience, the relevant ad thing just doesn't work. If I search for something and Google | Amazon | eBay | $whatever gets an idea that I'm interested in a product, it goes on bombarding me with "you may be interested in" when either (a) I've already bought something so I don't need another one, or (b) I was looking on somebody else's behalf anyway.

      1. Pookietoo

        Re: If you're storing your stuff locally, they can't mine it.

        You apparently didn't read the Adobe spies on reading habits article.

  11. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Stop

    £30 a MB ?

    I was only trying to remember how much I paid for the 128 *K*B I needed to upgrade my Amstrad 1512 to a 1640. Pretty certain it was around £30 and that was cheap (as a mate had <cough> acquired some from his sandwich placement.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: £30 a MB ?

      My first 32K (yes, K!) RAM set me back around US$2,000 in 1978. I think that was the price, might have a trifle more. Lot of water under the old bridge ...

  12. Teiwaz

    No chrome for me, ever then...

    I've only got one 'popular' drive (i.e. FAT) left (it's likely to die soon). The rest are all Ext2.

    I wouldn't buy a Scanner that could only scan documents in Russian, or a Printer that only printed in Mandarin.

    I feel the same way about FAT and NTFS.

    Not my language.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like