Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Note that images greater than 4 GiB (which is less than what fits on a DVD > by a few hundred MiB) are still a problem. People using FAT for a file system > have a maximum file size of 4 GiB. So providing larger images for download is > going to give some people problems. I'm wondering what the collective wisdom is on FAT and flash memory. If one doesn't care about MS products, does anyone really need to use FAT? I've been formatting my USB flash drives with ext3 or ext4 for a while now. Mostly it was because I was sick of the filenames and permissions getting trashed, but if there was a filesize limit I dodged all the better. So far the only thing that failed with ext3 was when I tried sticking a ext3 flash into my Google G1 Android (linux) phone. That has also got to be a prime example of irony. The only other case I needed a FAT FS was when upgrading the firmware on an Asus mobo from the BIOS. -wolfgang -- Wolfgang S. Rupprecht If the airwaves belong to the public why does the public only get 3 non-overlapping WIFI channels? -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
