Why Windows doesn't support ext4 if everything an OS sees are bytes sequences
I am studying Operating Systems and my teacher sent us this:
"In relation to file systems, is correct:"
And the right answer is:
"Files can be structured in many ways, and this does not matter to the Operating System, because everything it sees are bytes sequence."
If that's true, why can't all OS use every kind of file system?
operating-system filesystems
asked Nov 20 at 11:51
AGneX
82
add a comment |
I am studying Operating Systems and my teacher sent us this:
"In relation to file systems, is correct:"
And the right answer is:
"Files can be structured in many ways, and this does not matter to the Operating System, because everything it sees are bytes sequence."
If that's true, why can't all OS use every kind of file system?
operating-system filesystems
asked Nov 20 at 11:51
AGneX
82
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– xmojmr
Nov 20 at 11:56
1
They surely can in theory. But someone need to write the code to do deal with the different formats of a particular filesystem - and there's many combinations of operating systems and filesystems for which noone has done that yet.
– nos
Nov 20 at 21:30
add a comment |
I am studying Operating Systems and my teacher sent us this:
"In relation to file systems, is correct:"
And the right answer is:
"Files can be structured in many ways, and this does not matter to the Operating System, because everything it sees are bytes sequence."
If that's true, why can't all OS use every kind of file system?
operating-system filesystems
asked Nov 20 at 11:51
AGneX
82
I am studying Operating Systems and my teacher sent us this:
"In relation to file systems, is correct:"
And the right answer is:
"Files can be structured in many ways, and this does not matter to the Operating System, because everything it sees are bytes sequence."
If that's true, why can't all OS use every kind of file system?
operating-system filesystems
operating-system filesystems
asked Nov 20 at 11:51
AGneX
82
asked Nov 20 at 11:51
AGneX
82
asked Nov 20 at 11:51
AGneX
82
asked Nov 20 at 11:51
AGneX
82
asked Nov 20 at 11:51
AGneX
82
82
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– xmojmr
Nov 20 at 11:56
1
They surely can in theory. But someone need to write the code to do deal with the different formats of a particular filesystem - and there's many combinations of operating systems and filesystems for which noone has done that yet.
– nos
Nov 20 at 21:30
add a comment |
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– xmojmr
Nov 20 at 11:56
1
They surely can in theory. But someone need to write the code to do deal with the different formats of a particular filesystem - and there's many combinations of operating systems and filesystems for which noone has done that yet.
– nos
Nov 20 at 21:30
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– xmojmr
Nov 20 at 11:56
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– xmojmr
Nov 20 at 11:56
1
1
They surely can in theory. But someone need to write the code to do deal with the different formats of a particular filesystem - and there's many combinations of operating systems and filesystems for which noone has done that yet.
– nos
Nov 20 at 21:30
They surely can in theory. But someone need to write the code to do deal with the different formats of a particular filesystem - and there's many combinations of operating systems and filesystems for which noone has done that yet.
– nos
Nov 20 at 21:30
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It isn’t because of technology; it is possible to write an arbitrary on-disk format file system for almost every OS(*).
The problem may be in the business case, that MicroSoft doesn’t see a benefit in providing this level of integration with Linux. Maybe they view this file system as inherently fragile in comparison with their own, and do not which to expose their customers to such a risk. That is an excuse usually trotted out by Apple when what they really mean is lock-in; and I suspect that is the case with MicroSoft. While the virtues of Apple and Google are questionable, the case against MicroSoft was proven.
(*) - at the worst, you could loopback an NFS or CIFS mount onto a local demon which worked with the on-disk format.
answered Nov 20 at 21:21
mevets
2,030618
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53392405%2fwhy-windows-doesnt-support-ext4-if-everything-an-os-sees-are-bytes-sequences%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It isn’t because of technology; it is possible to write an arbitrary on-disk format file system for almost every OS(*).
The problem may be in the business case, that MicroSoft doesn’t see a benefit in providing this level of integration with Linux. Maybe they view this file system as inherently fragile in comparison with their own, and do not which to expose their customers to such a risk. That is an excuse usually trotted out by Apple when what they really mean is lock-in; and I suspect that is the case with MicroSoft. While the virtues of Apple and Google are questionable, the case against MicroSoft was proven.
(*) - at the worst, you could loopback an NFS or CIFS mount onto a local demon which worked with the on-disk format.
answered Nov 20 at 21:21
mevets
2,030618
add a comment |
It isn’t because of technology; it is possible to write an arbitrary on-disk format file system for almost every OS(*).
The problem may be in the business case, that MicroSoft doesn’t see a benefit in providing this level of integration with Linux. Maybe they view this file system as inherently fragile in comparison with their own, and do not which to expose their customers to such a risk. That is an excuse usually trotted out by Apple when what they really mean is lock-in; and I suspect that is the case with MicroSoft. While the virtues of Apple and Google are questionable, the case against MicroSoft was proven.
(*) - at the worst, you could loopback an NFS or CIFS mount onto a local demon which worked with the on-disk format.
answered Nov 20 at 21:21
mevets
2,030618
add a comment |
It isn’t because of technology; it is possible to write an arbitrary on-disk format file system for almost every OS(*).
The problem may be in the business case, that MicroSoft doesn’t see a benefit in providing this level of integration with Linux. Maybe they view this file system as inherently fragile in comparison with their own, and do not which to expose their customers to such a risk. That is an excuse usually trotted out by Apple when what they really mean is lock-in; and I suspect that is the case with MicroSoft. While the virtues of Apple and Google are questionable, the case against MicroSoft was proven.
(*) - at the worst, you could loopback an NFS or CIFS mount onto a local demon which worked with the on-disk format.
answered Nov 20 at 21:21
mevets
2,030618
It isn’t because of technology; it is possible to write an arbitrary on-disk format file system for almost every OS(*).
The problem may be in the business case, that MicroSoft doesn’t see a benefit in providing this level of integration with Linux. Maybe they view this file system as inherently fragile in comparison with their own, and do not which to expose their customers to such a risk. That is an excuse usually trotted out by Apple when what they really mean is lock-in; and I suspect that is the case with MicroSoft. While the virtues of Apple and Google are questionable, the case against MicroSoft was proven.
(*) - at the worst, you could loopback an NFS or CIFS mount onto a local demon which worked with the on-disk format.
answered Nov 20 at 21:21
mevets
2,030618
answered Nov 20 at 21:21
mevets
2,030618
answered Nov 20 at 21:21
mevets
2,030618
answered Nov 20 at 21:21
mevets
2,030618
2,030618
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53392405%2fwhy-windows-doesnt-support-ext4-if-everything-an-os-sees-are-bytes-sequences%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
– xmojmr
Nov 20 at 11:56
1
They surely can in theory. But someone need to write the code to do deal with the different formats of a particular filesystem - and there's many combinations of operating systems and filesystems for which noone has done that yet.
– nos
Nov 20 at 21:30