Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:53:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@inai.de>
To: Dan Luedtke <mail@danrl.de>
cc: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lanyfs@librelist.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Introducing Lanyard Filesystem
In-Reply-To: <1345383264.4441.56.camel@tunafish>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1208221144520.25605@frira.zrqbmnf.qr>
References: <1345333117-2826-1-git-send-email-mail@danrl.de>  <CAFLxGvwwAX=85hmgxg6qGTpp4YCppuj2mpw7GkB1eV8qhta2bg@mail.gmail.com>  <1345371135.4441.2.camel@tunafish>  <5030BC7E.3030000@gmail.com> <1345383264.4441.56.camel@tunafish>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LNX 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1193
Lines: 23

On Sunday 2012-08-19 15:34, Dan Luedtke wrote:

>I analyzed about 600k file stored on various removable storage devices. 
>80 volunteers sent in data about their devices, generated by a program 
>(windows) and scripts (linux, bsd, osx) I wrote for that purpose. The 
>data shows that people use more complex filesystems as soon as they are 
>confronted with problems (mostly the 4GB limit). After that they have 
>problems getting their data accessed by other systems. I derived from 
>that, that we need a filesystem that is so simple that even unpopular 
>operating systems can implement it without having their business plan 
>explode.

Those unpopular OSes do not care about *any other* filesystem at all. 

The only way to get a filesystem accepted is by making an ISO standard
out of it - or something in that direction - *and* use it thoroughly
in products, like UDF. Even then, support for new revisions of UDF
has been rather slow-coming.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/