On 2014-10-03 23:25, John Andersen wrote:
On 10/3/2014 2:18 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Times in FAT are relative.
That's the problem I told you on my first post. It is unsolvable. It is not buggy, it is simply limited (bad) initial design.
You are right, of course. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms724290(v=vs.85).as... On an NTFS file system there is more capability, but most portable devices are saddled with this stupid FAT system, which is about the dumbest decision ever made.
Not stupid. Old and simple, designed for very simple machines and times. Not designed to last for decades. Thus it is very easy to implement, with no royalties due. Corruptions on it are "simple", there is no journal to replay. The current alternative for flash media as used on cameras is exfat, which is terrible. It is protected by patents (you have to pay to implement it) and not supported in Linux. There is some partial support outside of openSUSE somewhere, I forget where. Samsung and others are trying to develop their own format, specific for flash storage. I have not seen a real world implementation of it. I don't recall the name this instant. Very promising. Sigh... they say memory is the second thing you lose. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)