I need an alternative to FAT for the MP3 player I am designing. The FS has to be fast and light as I have an 8 bit CPU, 8K Flash and 8K byte RAM. I just need to read files of a hard disk which has been written by a PC.

What is the sensible alternative to FAT?

The only reason for supporting filesystems like vfat and ntfs is for backwarsd compatibllity. Nobody would use something like vfat on a proper filesystem, especially one that needs to be fast, safe and efficient.

I don't think the patent applies to fat filesystems proper because these predate Microsoft as a company. The patent must be something to do with extending the filenames beyond the traditional 6+3.....but then I never use extended filesystem names on floppies (or USB sticks, same difference)...I'm old school.

Those patents won't last forever. But I'd sure like to be able to link to and access my old files on legacy hardware 10 years from now.

Who? Yeah, exactly.

The comments in this thread bring up an excellent point: FAT sucks. It is not really a secure file system to store data (think: the last time you forgot to *safely remove* a USB stick or MP3 player or whatever and lost all your data). It fragments, has limited file sizes, and is not a journaling file system. It is legacy garbage.

It is time for a change anyway, and Microsoft has shown us all too well that we cannot rely upon a monopolistic corporate bully to set any standards for the rest of the world. Open standards from now on...thanks for the wake-up call, Microsoft!

Microsoft is a company that makes money from licensing technology - either in software or in devices. For them, getting TomTom to take a license is the norm.

While it's all well and good for Linux to develop and support new flash media formats, companies may consider just licensing from Microsoft now, and not get involved in the GPL religious war.

And given that most customers are pragmatic rather than theological about their tech, it's the best decision to make.

The fact that Microsoft is willing to build licenses that allow for Linux use, and seemingly license to all comers (i.e. activesync to Apple) make it clear we will be seeing MORE, not fewer, license deals between Microsoft and Open Source companies.

Does anyone know precisely which patents are the ones in question. The FAT file system is not that different from others circa 1978, and I wonder if there is not prior art that is relevant. As someone who worked on them with a programmer who went on to Microsoft, I wonder if they haven't patented stuff that was pre-existing.

ZFS, EXT*, etc. file systems are too bloated. Digital Cameras do not care about file permissions, security groups, or anything else. It neeeds a place to plog a file and that's it. That's why FAT is so popular- it's tried and true and provides the minimal set of features for which portable devices needs.

"I tried to play my mp3 but it said permission was denied!"

"Ok, use the scroll wheel and type this in: chmod 444..."

It's too late to change FAT. If you want M$ to use an open file system, tell them to start with the next OS.

This is like trying to replace mp3 with ogg. It's too late, not going to happen.

I think MS won`t put ext2/ext3 or UDF drivers in any Windows distribution, so if popular open source projects bind them into there install packs: eg. Firefox distribution, and other popular open source aplication (sun java infection, google toolbars :) OOO and there is more of them), so after 6 months 30% of world pc`s will have suport of the ext2/ext3 filesystem

What's really sad is that the new SDXC cards (SD cards bigger than 32 GB) will be based off a new filesystem, called exFAT, proprietary of course. It doesn't make any sense, since not even Vista supports it. I still don't know why they didn't use an open source filesystem (ZFS, maybe?)

http://www.fs-driver.org/download.html
All windows supported.
It's free.
It is small.
It is working.
I have small 16GB OCZ ATV drive and i was suffering with NTFS (since i do want 4GB+ files (archives))with both linux and windows.
Since i figured out that i can actually use this driver on windows. now i have 20 MB fat partition with the driver and the rest is ext2

M$ makes peanuts from each USB/FAT32 device licensed. The real effect of this is that people will be reluctant to use GNU/Linux if it invites suits from M$. We need to kill software patents to make their attack impossible. The Bilski case opened the coffin of software patents. We need a decision to put a spike through the heart of the corpse. The real solution is to eliminate software patents so that the chill is gone.

TomTom and other device manufacturers.

Microsoft sued over FAT patents TomTom and TT were forced to settle. This could happen to any hardware manufacturer using FAT.

If they swap to an open alternative, they have no problem.

Ext2/3 is available for windows as a download and could be distributed with hardware driver disks.

I have to agree with the story, it's time to get rid of the fat file system. Completely dismissing the Windows rants about compatibility etc, a fiel system is just that, get a driver - done! More seriously he limitations of fat/vfat/fat32 etc just keep coming back to bite us in the a55. There is a maximum file size of 4GB and with HD video becoming the norm we'll see videos exceeding this more often if you don't want compression.

NTFS is a propriety file system patented and copyrighted to Microsoft. And they don't allow others to use it using there code. Anybody able to read/write to it have written they're own interpration of it so as to not use MS' code or patented technique. Therefore (saddly) although some Linux's can read and some can read/write to an NTFS drive it can be very risky from a corrupt file point of view.

Not all PCs can write to NTFS. OSX can only read NTFS filesystems without some buggy extra drivers being installed (ok, I'm a version behind so maybe that's changed, but even so all the previous gen OSX users can only read). At least some Linux distros are in the same boat, afaik.

Yet again, UDF was designed for just this application, despite being championed by optical media consortiums. It's more efficient in the way it organises storage space, an open standard and Win, Linux, MacOS and BSD can all at least read UFS right now (they'd not be playing DVDs if that weren't true), although some can't create the filesystem yet.

Still, if folks want to argue about the merits of filesystems which are not universal, tied to a particular OS and not open standards, who am I to say them nay?

...it's not just the PCs which could have an update to read something else. It's the millions of cameras, phones, MP3 players, and all the other things that use flash cards for storage. Good luck changing that.

It's not as if FAT has been causing the manufacturers major headaches or costs - and that would be the only reason they'd want to change, and even then only *after* the vast majority of PCs could reliably read them too.

I wonder if NTFS is a possible other option? I has some powerful stuff like symbolic links, journaling, etc - and can handle the huge filesystem and file sizes we're soon going to need. And all PCs (including Linux ones) cxan already read/write it. Any licensing problem there?

Yeah, sure... let's move away from a file system EVERYTHING can read, to one that only Linux can read. Great idea!

Until someone comes up with a simple file system that is truly open source (i'm thinking BSD licence, not "all your code are belong to GNU" licence) that is simple enough to implement in any operating system or embedded device, FAT it is.

Dimdows users will need to download new drivers. But they’re used to having to do that. Call it a “firmware update” or something...

The ~2% linux marketshare is going to push the ~90% windows marketshare into supporting whatever open filesystem to replace vfat on portable storage.....is this a day late perhaps?