Oops! I thought you meant partition-size limit, which is 2GB for FAT16, but I now presume you meant file-size limit, which is of course 4GB for FAT32. Which, as you say, sucks. Workarounds would be possible, but ugly.
Of course, if they "upgrade" from FAT32, where would they go? If they choose NTFS, it's a bit of a hassle to get Linux working with it, plus it's a dreaded Microsoft taint. If they choose ext2 or ext3, it's a hassle to use the drive with a Windows box. I don't think there's One True Filesystem that they can fall back on other than FAT32...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
James @ Aug 1st 2007 1:14PM
Oops! I thought you meant partition-size limit, which is 2GB for FAT16, but I now presume you meant file-size limit, which is of course 4GB for FAT32. Which, as you say, sucks. Workarounds would be possible, but ugly.
Of course, if they "upgrade" from FAT32, where would they go? If they choose NTFS, it's a bit of a hassle to get Linux working with it, plus it's a dreaded Microsoft taint. If they choose ext2 or ext3, it's a hassle to use the drive with a Windows box. I don't think there's One True Filesystem that they can fall back on other than FAT32...