Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:18:14 +0100 | From | Nicolas George <> | Subject | Re: Filesystem for mobile hard drive |
| |
Le quintidi 25 pluviôse, an CCXIV, Phillip Susi a écrit : > Ahh, I see. I've never seen anyone use it in conjunction with an si > prefix. I also think that they use it in RFCs because at the time they > started writing them, bytes were not always 8 bits on all machines. > Today it is a pretty safe assumption that a byte is 8 bits, so most > people use the two terms interchangeably ;)
They continue using more octet than bytes even in recent RFCs. I have read I do not remember where that the goal was to avoid byte/bit confusion.
I am sorry, I did not intend to start an off-topic subthread. I think I should stick with kB/MB/GB unless I already used the full word earlier.
> I had that same thought a few weeks ago so I gave it a try. I formatted > a partition with UDF, put some files on it, then booted windows to see > if it would take it. It didn't :(
So bad... Perhaps it was asking too much...
> Hrm... interesting, I wonder how complete it is and what it's license > is?
The man page (<URL: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-5166/6mbb1kq22?a=view > for Solaris 10, I believe OpenSolaris is based on it) tells briefly that the checked inconsistencies are (I quote):
- Blocks claimed by more than one file or the free list - Blocks claimed by a file or the free list outside the range of the file system - Incorrect link counts in file entries - Incorrect directory sizes - Bad file entry format - Blocks not accounted for anywhere - Directory checks, file pointing to unallocated file entry and absence of a parent directory entry - Descriptor checks, more blocks for files than there are in the file system - Bad free block list format - Total free block count incorrect
I do not know UDF at all, so I can not tell if this is enough or not.
As for the licence, it is the one of OpenSolaris <URL: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/opensolaris_license/ >, which is free enough for the FSF to make efforts to have GPL3 compatible with it.
Regards,
-- Nicolas George [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |