From: Psyco Dedman <psyco_at_psyco.yi.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 17:25:03 -0800

I have some opinions on this matter that i'd like to share, and in
response to yours...

> 1. Requiring NTFS would require users to repartition
> their large drive, likely causing data loss, just to try/run
> Rockbox. If they switched back, NTFS songs wouldn't be
> available.

Well nobody said anything about requiring it...
If anybody wants to stick with their FAT, let them, but those of us
who otherwise have the ability and desire to use other filesystems would
certainly appreciate the option... As far as such people go, i doubt any
of us would mind if it were strictly a compile-time option.

As far as the rest of your objections go, i more or less agree...
Personally i'd love to see rockbox have support for a better filesystem,
however NTFS isn't on my list... I'd prefer an open/free FS ala ext3,
reiserfs, etc...
As to which one particularly, it would depend on the merits for our uses:
performance, stability, small codebase, and whatever other attributes
that are desirable for small/portable/embeded type applications.
I'm sure there's something out there better for this than FAT!
Received on 2002-11-17