From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0c8f430361127927ddb4af6cef5a5c94@rei2.9hal>
References: <CAL4LZyjOmGSQ+WKryFQUiGC_iSnu24paGL4EYt9=LYmgqNPrVA@mail.gmail.com>
	<0c8f430361127927ddb4af6cef5a5c94@rei2.9hal>
From: John Floren <john@jfloren.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:39:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL4LZyg+EMe_m0_wgZtD0PqHnjRtrm3qsnh_j5W2131n1eUyrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [9fans] a disk filesystem for both Plan 9 and Linux?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0722b3ba-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:24 PM,  <cinap_lenrek@gmx.de> wrote:
> i think fat is still the best option, even tho it has these limitations.
> virtually every operating system can deal with fat, and the implementations
> are robust and tolerant to errors because they are pretty much expected.
>
> ext2srv doesnt support jurnaling.
>
> --
> cinap
>

Someone mentioned that 9front has a 32-bit FAT implementation, is that
right? If so, it would probably be the best contender.

john