It's an interesting post to read on a Sunday afternoon. I'm quite
interested to see that this does indeed work, though I can't help but
feel that it'smore a solution waiting for a problem.
What advantage would ext2 bring over UDF? Of all the file systems one
would use to 'hide' files from Windows users, I would personally place
ext2 firmly at the bottom of the list (just above FAT) given that ext2
drivers are readily available (and perfectly stable) via an IFS driver
Still, I'd be interested to hear why UFS/ext2 would be a better choice
(Sorry Frank, re-sent with the staffslug list in CC)
Quoting Frank Mitchell <mitchell(a)wyatt672earp.force9.co.uk>:
Recently I noticed Sun Solaris used CDs with a UFS File System. So I decided
to try UFS and Ext2 on Optical Disks. It should work on CD-RW, but I had
spare DVD+RW disks, so I decided to get more ambitious.
Note that DVDs use 2048-byte Sectors like CDs, but they're handled in
Error-Correcting Blocks of 16. You can't expect DVD-RW to work, because
DVD-RW only writes complete ECC Blocks. But DVD+RW (like DVD-RAM) can
update individual Sectors.
FreeBSD UFS1 wouldn't work this way. The FreeBSD Handbook gives instructions
for DVD-RAM, and obviously DVD-RAM has a different layout. But OpenSUSE Linux
seems okay with Ext2 on DVD+RW. I copied a large Subtree and checked the
result using diff -qr.
Does anybody have thoughts about this idea? Like: Any disadvantages which
haven't occurred to me? Obviously if you're recording Personal Information on
Removable Media it might be preferable to use a format which isn't readable
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras: Frank Mitchell
Staffslug mailing list
----- End forwarded message -----