limits on save.dat file

[donald]

Yeah...Fat32/NTFS are the Gods of the File Systems..dont touch them...
Do you want to use Linux?
Than use a Linux File System. = no save.dat-File

Quoting brokenman:
"Personally I can't think of any reason why one would have to use a non
(Linux) native file system."

Thats it...end of story..

Sorry guys if this sounds a little rude, but I'm getting tired, of reading
hundreds of post regarding save.dat-file difficulties.

@obosan
I once got the same "try again" message after typing the correct root-Pw
leaving the text boxes blank and choosing cancel at the 2nd try gave me access.

[Ed_P]

Sorry guys if this sounds a little rude, but I'm getting tired, of reading
hundreds of post regarding save.dat-file difficulties.

Almost sounds like there is a problem with the app doesn't it.

[donald]

Well,I see this save.dat File as a Gift to the Windows Users.
(as a temporary solution)
So they can try and explore Porteus for a while without losing their Changes.
But If you decide to use porteus permanently, you should also decide to use it with a Linux File system.
(as any other Linux)

Almost sounds like there is a problem with the app doesn't it.

I dont know, because I do not use Windows = no Win FS = no save.dat...sorry.. 8)

[Ed_P]

Well,I see this save.dat File as a Gift to the Windows Users.
(as a temporary solution)
So they can try and explore Porteus for a while without losing their Changes.

I look at it as more a portability feature.

Years ago OSs were installed on hard drives which were built into pc machines. So once the hard drive was formatted nothing else would be using it. Then along came USB drives. Small at first and usually chip based but they could be used in any machine regardless of OS. To achieve that any machine capability a format that worked with multiple OSs needed to be used and it was agreed upon by all to be FAT. Linux, Windows, Apple all supported FAT formatted drives. As time went on these USB devices got bigger and faster. Now days they are be bigger and faster than the old hard drives built into pc machines.

So it is not uncommon now days to install a whole OS on a USB drive alone with files and data that gets used in pcs at work, home, libraries, university, etc. So having the drives be compatible with all these locations their format still uses FAT.

In addition to those considerations the ability to run multiple OSs on the same USB drive is also possible. Not even as installed OSs but rather as files that are booted based on a user's selection menu. And what do all these OSs have in common, the FAT format.

So I don't see the save.dat concept as a temporary solution, rather as a way to maintain the diverse flexibility that users today expect.

[donald]

I agree with the Historic Part, but as you said, usb and Hdd-Drives are
bigger than ever so one can have more than one Partition and File System on it.
(no Prob. with Linux.Does Windows still only see the 1st Partition on usb-flash?)
I want to believe that on this big,fat flash-drives one can find a small
place with the "better" file system for porteus.

[Ed_P]

(no Prob. with Linux.Does Windows still only see the 1st Partition on usb-flash?)

Oh yeah. But some newer USB drives are seen as Fixed drives rather than Removable so things are still a changing.

[brokenman]

a format that worked with multiple OSs needed to be used and it was agreed upon by all to be FAT. Linux, Windows, Apple all supported FAT formatted drives.

I don't think anything was agreed upon. Linux certainly does not support installation to FAT partitions. It reads and writes but you can't install linux on it. If you could we wouldn't need a container file. Installation was probably never envisaged, but surely putting files in excess of 4Gb was. FAT was designed by and invented for the windows platform who were in the pocket of the manufacturers. It is more than 30 years old and has extreme limitations given that as you say storage is increasing exponentially. Internet speeds are also increasing in this manner and therefore the ease of which people download large files, like video which can easily exceed the limitations of FAT. It needs a funeral.

[Ed_P]

a format that worked with multiple OSs needed to be used and it was agreed upon by all to be FAT. Linux, Windows, Apple all supported FAT formatted drives.

I don't think anything was agreed upon.

Linux can read and write to FAT drives can't it. And Apple. Trust me it was agreed upon to support reading and writing to the format. And at the time installing an OS to a removable USB drive was unthinkable. They were only 32 MB or so. But time has seen 32 MB become 32 GB and drives holding multiple OSs in the same partition and etc.

[brokenman]

Trust me it was agreed upon to support reading and writing to the format.

The only 'agree' in this scenario is in the form of 'licence agreement'. Agree or die.

USB drives were invented in 1999 by a company called M-SYSTEMS. In 2000 IBM began marketing and selling them. See the affiliation? I wonder who (in this agreement) was representing Linux. It is not so much that other operating sytems (outside of M$) agreed to read and write to/from FAT but that they had no choice. It was all that was available in main use at the time. Furthermore, motherboard manufacturers started writing firmware flash (via usb) capabilities into their hardware (that was shipped with guess what OS pre installed) which required a FAT32 partition to read from. We just kind of 'fell into?' the use of the FAT filesystem because it was what was available and widespread. If you wanted to compete in the electronics consumer market you needed a product that you could integrate into existing systems.

FAT is being phased out and replaced by exFAT which is proprietary and patented by guess who? For a good idea of how the process works read this. Essentially microsoft make deals with hardware vendors. Hardware vendors take the deal and everybody has to conform to what is dictated. No voting, no agreeing. This is the way MS rolls and why they are so successful.

Companies can integrate exFAT into a specific group of consumer devices, including cameras, camcorders, and digital photo frames for a flat fee. Mobile phones, PCs, and networks have a different volume pricing model. Microsoft has entered into licensing agreements with BlackBerry, Panasonic, Sanyo, Sony, Canon, Aspen Avionics, and BMW. Yep, cars that run MS. (insert joke about crashing here)

Thankfully there are parallel projects aiming to produce free exFAT file system implementations that are useful for portable operating systems. The project is the fuse-exfat and the packages are already available in the slackware 14.1 repositories.

[Obosan]

Hi everyone!
I have read [HOWTO] Find your way around in the Porteus File Structure and the posts
you recommended me.
Finally I decided to re-format my USB stick with ext4 system and set up Porteus xfce again.
Thank you for your replies.

[brokenman]

Congratulations Obosan. You have saved yourself (and us) from future troubles.

I have USB stick with two partitions. The first is FAT32 so I can boot UEFI, store files that windows may need to see and boot my porteus install which is on the second ext2 file system.

I would like to know what people think the 'ideal' setup for Porteus would be. I mean how you think things should be done after the ISO file is downloaded. There are MANY options so feel free to offer yours.

[fanthom]

i actually think differently - save.dat containers are better than native linux fs for one reason:
with FAT you preserve Win/Mac compatibility so can use stick for saving any data (no only Porteus changes) -> go to friend/family who has Win and copy that data on his PC. way easier than rebooting into Porteus and copying from ext4 (imagine you want to do it from ex4 and Porteus doesn't boot or go into GUI).

the only disadvantage is a fixed container size but same applies to ext4 partition.

[Obosan]

Dear brokenman and fanthom,

Which linux file system on USB stick do you recommend for Porteus, ext2 or ext4?
I am not familiar with the linux file system yet, so any recommendation would be
highy appreciated.

@brokenman wrote: I have USB stick with two partitions. The first is FAT32 so I can boot UEFI, store files that windows may need to see and boot my porteus install which is on the second ext2 file system.

That sounds great! The first partition is compatible with Win/Mac so one can share any saved data in it.
I am going to set up USB flash drive with two partitions. Arigato-Obrigado!

[Ed_P]

I have USB stick with two partitions. The first is FAT32 so I can boot UEFI, store files that windows may need to see and boot my porteus install which is on the second ext2 file system.

Have you tried your USB stick in a non-UEFI machine? Is it still bootable/readable?

[brokenman]

I havn't tried installing syslinux to a UEFI enabled USB drive and booting on a non-UEFI machine. I don't think it would work since UEFI implements a fake boot sector so that if you install a traditional boot loader you don't nuke your UEFI boot loader. The two partition scheme (for a USB) has always been my method of choice since I was using slax. It means I don't have to use a save file and I preserve Win/Mac compatibility.

Obosan, the choice of filesystem is always a personal choice. I prefer ext2 (no journaling means less read/write) but you sacrifice security in this way. I constantly backup so this is not an issue for me. For others I would recommend xfs or ext4.