How can Linux read so many types of file systems but Windows cannot?

[chrstrbrts]

Hello,

I've used both Linux and Windows, and I've noticed that Windows seems rather limited with respect to types of file systems it can interpret.

Windows handles FAT, FAT32, and NTFS, but I can't think of any others.

Linux, however, can handle all of those and many more such as ext2, ext3, etc.

Linux can read a file system created by Windows, but the reverse does not hold.

Why the difference?

 

[whm1974]

Well for one thing users want Linux to be able to access and use other filesystems. Windows users on the other hand don't usually need to do so.

 

[whm1974]

I feel that this is a too simple an answer I gave, can someone explain in more detail?

 

[Elixer]

Basically, MS officially only supports MS stuff.

Linux supports whatever someone makes drivers for.
It took quite a while to have good NTFS support on linux.

 

[lxskllr]

I feel that this is a too simple an answer I gave, can someone explain in more detail?

Your explanation is good enough. To flesh it out, gnu/linux works for its users, and windows works for MS. Everything MS does is to solidify its market position, and they don't care about you as long as you're using MS tech. It would be trivially easy for them to include support for other file systems since they're an open spec, but they choose not to. That's open hostility.

 

[whm1974]

Thanks guys. I was just feeling that my answer was too simple.

 

[Micrornd]

Hello,

I've used both Linux and Windows, and I've noticed that Windows seems rather limited with respect to types of file systems it can interpret.
Windows handles FAT, FAT32, and NTFS, but I can't think of any others.
Linux, however, can handle all of those and many more such as ext2, ext3, etc.
Linux can read a file system created by Windows, but the reverse does not hold.
Why the difference?

While that is true for MS support and the Windows OS directly out of the box, it hasn't been true in reality for a long time (at least since 2012).
While "Google is your friend", here's just one example - https://www.techgainer.com/how-to-m...ions-ext4ext3ext2-in-windows-explorer-easily/

 

[vailr]

"exFAT" is supported natively (for both read and write) by both: Windows 10 and by macOS (Linux also).
Which works fine when handling extra large sized files, which may be too big for FAT32, and where macOS can (natively) only read but not write to NTFS formatted drives. Probably the best option for formatting a USB thumb drive being used for transferring between Windows & macOS machines.
However, if you wanted to directly boot a PC from an external exFAT formatted USB drive, that may not be possible (haven't tried).

 

[you2]

This is a form of marketing. Linux wants interoperability; to allow mixing and matching technology as it fits you. Microsoft wants to lock you into their platform. This is why both microsoft and apple enforce copyright/patents that target platform specific features. The game isn't so much that the technology is new/unique/revolutionary; rather the idea is to lock you into their ecosystem.
-
For example try talking to an apple user using facetime on an android device.
-
android doesn't support exFAT ('cept on samsung device which has a cross patent license with ms). is exFAT super duper advance technology; no but this is a method to make file sharing more difficult.

 

[Cogman]

Well, let me turn it around, WHY should windows support other file systems? MS has really no incentive to support these non-ntfs file systems. Heck, it doesn't even really have a reason to support Fat32 other than for legacy's sake.

 

[whm1974]

Well, let me turn it around, WHY should windows support other file systems? MS has really no incentive to support these non-ntfs file systems. Heck, it doesn't even really have a reason to support Fat32 other than for legacy's sake.

In short, they don't have to since they have most of the desktop market. It must be nice to dominate the marketplace.

 

[Cogman]

Even if they didn't, they just don't have a reason to. They have already put in the blood, sweat, and effort to make a file system. Why would they put in extra effort to support a file system that they don't control?

Apple does the same thing, they have APFS (and HFS+ before that). They have no reason to support ZFS, btrfs, or ext4. None. Their customers by and large are going to be using whatever default they provide and nothing else.

The problem with adding more file systems is support for those file systems isn't free. What happens if there is a security bug in the ext4 driver? How about if there is a corrupted btrfs mount? Should apple and Microsoft also provide tools to diagnose and resolve those problems? And then there is patent and licencing problems. They are basically stuck doing their own in house implementation of these file systems to get around licencing and patents are a whole 'nother issue.

In short, high cost, low benefit.

 

[amd6502]

I might be completely wrong, but for some reason I'm thinking windoze 10 finally is able to read lunix partitions?

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Because anyone can download the source code for any Linux distro and modified it as he sees fit. It just so happens, there are at least one developer who finds adding support for a non supported file system useful

 

[you2]

It is not that simple. The problem is that companies like MS and apple go out of their way to be incompatible. They use patent to block compatibility. That's why most android devices can't read ntfs or exfat on sd cards. The exception is samsung devices because samsung has a cross license agreement with MS. Yes you can work around it as code can be installed by the user but companies can't do it for you unless they want to pay MS.

It isn't that MS filesystems are that amazing (from a technology standpoint) or facetime is a marvel; it is an abuse of the patent system (imho) to block competitors from interacting with their customer base. Unfortunately the patent office is (imho) very poor at judging patent applications and grant many frivolous patents and then leave it to the court which is even worse at judging the tehcnical validity of a patent (ignoring that large companies can spend millions to defend them). Just look at the fact that apple patent a square as a tablet and

 

[urvile]

It is not that simple. The problem is that companies like MS and apple go out of their way to be incompatible. They use patent to block compatibility. That's why most android devices can't read ntfs or exfat on sd cards. The exception is samsung devices because samsung has a cross license agreement with MS. Yes you can work around it as code can be installed by the user but companies can't do it for you unless they want to pay MS.

It isn't that MS filesystems are that amazing (from a technology standpoint) or facetime is a marvel; it is an abuse of the patent system (imho) to block competitors from interacting with their customer base. Unfortunately the patent office is (imho) very poor at judging patent applications and grant many frivolous patents and then leave it to the court which is even worse at judging the tehcnical validity of a patent (ignoring that large companies can spend millions to defend them). Just look at the fact that apple patent a square as a tablet and

Apple are one of the worst for patent trolling they also like their proprietary protocols as well (airplay?). Ultimately it's just business. As was noted above why would apple or microsoft implement ext4 support or whatever? What's the benefit for them? It costs money to develop the drivers and then maintain them. It's just a business decision same with patent trolling. Microsoft have a habit of taking open standards and changing them slightly anyway.

In their previous versions of LDAP they implemented some parts of the IETF LDAP rfcs but not all. Which caused some compatibility issues with open LDAP servers. In my experience lots of companies do that. They implement parts of standards but not all which then makes standard compliant implementations incompatible. Although I am not really talking about software that is intended for sale. Still it's great when you have to deliberately make your own implementation non compliant so it becomes compliant.

If you work in the field long enough you just....become apathetic?

 

[Ratman6161]

Because anyone can download the source code for any Linux distro and modified it as he sees fit. It just so happens, there are at least one developer who finds adding support for a non supported file system useful

hmmm. You must have missed the post above where someone has done exactly that...for windows. No, they didn't have windows source code. There is no need. Since you missed it, here it is again for your convenience

https://www.techgainer.com/how-to-m...ions-ext4ext3ext2-in-windows-explorer-easily/

That said, when you use the platform with such a small market share, you have an interest in being able to read other's file systems. I don't need the capability in windows but if I do some day, it definitely is available.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

hmmm. You must have missed the post above where someone has done exactly that...for windows. No, they didn't have windows source code. There is no need. Since you missed it, here it is again for your convenience

https://www.techgainer.com/how-to-m...ions-ext4ext3ext2-in-windows-explorer-easily/

That said, when you use the platform with such a small market share, you have an interest in being able to read other's file systems. I don't need the capability in windows but if I do some day, it definitely is available.

That link gave me permission denied error. coincidence or doing that without tweaking windows itself is impossible?

 

[JackTheBear]

There are ways to mount an EXT file system in Windows very similar to how you would mount an ISO in Windows 7. Generally you just need a driver or an additional piece of software that doesn't come with Windows for the reasons stated above. You can use Ext2Read or Linux Reader or Ext2FSD.