Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Sep 2012 21:45 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Microsoft and RIM have announced that RIM has licensed Redmond's exFAT patents. The press release contains a ridiculous amount of hyperbole nonsense, and if you translate it into regular people speak, it basically comes down to RIM paying Microsoft protection money for stupid nonsensical software patents. Ridiculous articles like like this make it seem as if we're talking about patents on major technological breakthroughs, but don't be fooled: this is because for some inexplicable reason, we're using crappy FAT for SD cards.
Thread beginning with comment 535805
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Metadata
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 20th Sep 2012 08:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Metadata"
Member since:

You know that there are many other types of computers besides desktops, right?

Yes. And you know there are other file systems besides FAT, right?

Coding in support for a few file systems more modern than that creaky old thing developed back in the 1970s with 8.3 file names and a kludge for what has become known as "long filenames" wouldn't kill anyone, would it?

Is it really so much to ask that the portable devices we actually spend money on be designed to accept the small handful of file systems that are native to the operating systems installed on our desktops/laptops/tablets/etc., which they are supposedly designed to connect with in the first place? Or even the file system(s) native to the kernel the fucking device itself it running (Android=ext2/3/4)? If it's removable storage (SD, microSD, etc.), you should be given the choice. Simple as that.

It's not like they would have to support microwave ovens, traffic light control systems, space shuttles, and supercomputers. Just the types of machines that normal people would plug a typical cell phone, camera or other portable device into using a USB cable.

Just to make it clear: Supporting other operating systems does NOT fucking mean you have to immediately drop FAT support, and therefore all of those Windows machines already out there that Microsoft continues to stubbornly and anti-competitively not allow interoperability with the rest of the computing world.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Metadata
by lucas_maximus on Thu 20th Sep 2012 13:54 in reply to "RE[7]: Metadata"
lucas_maximus Member since:

At the end of the day modern FAT is good enough and works with most other devices, there isn't any incentive to do anything else.

I don't really understand why you would be getting so upset about it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Metadata
by moondevil on Thu 20th Sep 2012 17:51 in reply to "RE[7]: Metadata"
moondevil Member since:

Dude, calm down. You're making yourself an example why the common people stay away from alternative operating systems.

FAT works for the Joe on the street.

Every single device out there where I can stick a memory card understands FAT, most of them are not upgradable.

Why should any company increase their development costs just to make a few people happy, if what they have now works?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Metadata
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 06:05 in reply to "RE[8]: Metadata"
UltraZelda64 Member since:

Because we're the ones buying their damn products? I will just end it at that.

Edited 2012-09-23 06:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2