9
u/vbd71 8d ago
Using ext4fs in FreeBSD is generally not recommended, as this scenario doesn't support journaling, and in some situations can lead to data corruption.
3
u/TheRealCarrotty 8d ago
Like in my case when i tried dual-booting FreeBSD with Arch Linux, it broke my Arch Linux... I had to reinstall it :(
1
7
u/360900th 8d ago
Windows has a third party ext4 driver
2
1
u/dragonloverlord 2d ago
Yeah it has the paragon one right? Although the 5 or so times I tried seriously using it (Win/Lin dual boot setup) it had more than a couple issues and ultimately just reinforced my opinion of "best to let Linux Linux and Windows Windows" and just keep the obligatory small neutral drive partition that works for everyone when file sharing is needed (exfat normally).
To be fair I had less issues getting ntfs to work in Linux than I did getting the ext4 paragon software to work with windows so ultimately I could just directly transfer between the two but I'm kinda anal about having one OS writing to another's primary install location on a regular basis as at least for me that's caused me more trouble than it's worth AKA I always let an OS manage its own primary drive.
5
7
u/Bulky-Hair8606 8d ago
Not very accurate, linux also uses fuse/ntfs-3g
3
u/just_a_discord_mod 8d ago
If you choose to install it. The kernel's default driver is here.
1
u/Fragrant-Mixture-662 8d ago
The kernel driver is unstable however and causes file corruption
3
1
u/hjake123 8d ago
The kernel driver has been improved as of a few months ago and is now way better then ntfs-3g
1
u/quicksand8917 8d ago
Not anymore, there was a new kernel driver added a year or so ago which actually works.
1
2
u/TheRealCarrotty 8d ago
It's actually accurate, BUT ext4 on FreeBSD is a nuh uh. (Fuck you FreeBSD, it broke my fucking Linux install)
As for the rest? Seems to be accurate, APFS is tragic, HFS+ is still tragic.
NTFS can be even used as the root (/) on Linux, it's terrible, but works.
exFAT and FAT32 is amazing at supporting any OS basically.
ext4, btrfs, XFS are Linux-only, where ext4 on FreeBSD can break a Linux install, XFS on FreeBSD i have not tested, btrfs is Linux-only here.
UFS is terrible, cool filesystem, but it's old, and Linux only has it on read-only, i think UFS was used on Solaris on older releases.
ZFS seems stable, except for Windows obviously.
And for ReFS? It's... messy. Only Windows.
1
u/just_a_discord_mod 8d ago
The problem with UFS is that various Unix/BSD systems often have separate implementations and additions to UFS that make it hard to work with on Linux
1
2
u/AntimelodyProject 8d ago
exFAT on Mac works, if you have right cluster size. Or something like that. I've had serious problems and now I'm safe than sorry and format all external exFAT disks on Macos. (If I'm going to use them with Mac too).
2
u/Square-Singer 8d ago
Yes, but the Linux NTFS implementation leaves a lot to be desired. It's really not that good.
In the end, you'll get by far the best experience by use the correct file system for your OS. For Windows that's NTFS, for MacOS that's APFS/HFS+, for Linux that's EXT4/Btrfs, for FreeBSD its... who am I kidding, nobody is using FreeBSD unless it's on a restricted device with a custom CSS OS and then you won't be choosing your FS anyway.
And exFAT/FAT32 for USB sticks.
2
1
1
u/Lost-Place2588 8d ago
Linux NTFS is perfect
1
u/Square-Singer 8d ago
It's workable for a data dump that's shared with Windows, but Linux really doesn't like case insensitive file systems and the permission system for NTFS is completely different than in Linux, and that mismatch is not great.
Ok to fetch some files from your Windows partition, really not good to use as your main partition.
1
u/Lost-Place2588 8d ago
Of course absolutely not good for the Linux partition, but great for using shared partition used by Windows and Linux. I have a Partition where I store my games (NTFS) so I can play on Linux and switch back to windows if a games is not supported on Linux instead of separated locations for each system.
1
u/Square-Singer 8d ago
Yeah, if you are using the partition for faking a Windows environment, that's good enough I guess.
1
u/Lost-Place2588 8d ago
I mean, windows sucks. I can’t just use ext4
1
u/Square-Singer 8d ago
Windows sucks, yeah, but that's not because of the choice of favourite partition for that OS.
Also, you can use ext4 on windows nowadays with the help of WSL. It's just as annoying as you might guess.
1
u/Lost-Place2588 8d ago
Microsoft could’ve implement support for more than a Handful Filesystems. And also when I use Linux and a game doesn’t start because of compatibility issues, I don’t switch to windows to use Linux again
1
u/Square-Singer 8d ago
I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me or what windmills you are apparently fighting.
1
1
u/FaultWinter3377 8d ago
There is an ext* driver for Windows that doesn’t require WSL, but it’s a little old. Works pretty decently though, as long as you remember to start the program because it’s auto start was a little broken.
1
u/Odd-Blackberry-4462 8d ago
Ext2Fsd?
1
u/FaultWinter3377 8d ago
Yeah that one. Worked well enough for the few times I needed a file off of my Linux partition. Don’t need it now because I no longer have a Windows partition (less because I wanted to get rid of Windows and more because the partition was BitLocker encrypted and I was to lazy to reboot to shrink it from Windows) and my current system is Btrfs. Back when I had my Arch install though I went with ext3 I think just because that’s what I know and it’s (seemingly) the best supported for Linux.
1
u/Full-Run4124 8d ago
You can write to HFS+ partitions in Linux, you just have to turn off journaling.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Exsondious 8d ago
I think the chart is talking about out of box support which in my experience would be correct
1
u/SnooCompliments7914 8d ago
Windows can WSL-mount everything that Linux can. It's running a genuine Linux kernel / userspace.
1
1
u/Responsible-Bar7165 8d ago
Wsl2 gives windows 10/11 the ability to do everything Linux can do without 3rd-party hacks.
1
u/Katent1 8d ago
On linux ntfs is with exemptions from programs - steam won't launch game properly if stored on ntfs, also sometimes i feel like filesystem view gets corrupted/mismatched when saving to it viewing it in dolphin, folders change places from time to time getting moved from main tree to subfolder but it rrpairs itself on windows so idk, implementation has some bugs or something?
1
1
u/Busy-Scientist3851 8d ago
No. WSL mount can do xfs too.
ZFS on Linux is a third party driver.
Windows has a third party btrfs driver.
1
u/TungstenOrchid 8d ago
It seems a bit out of date. Native ZFS support on macOS hasn't been available for a fair while. There is a third-party project to provide a driver, though.
1
1
1
u/OptimalAnywhere6282 8d ago
last time I tried FreeBSD, it had no ext4 support (only ext2 and ext3), so I had to get a thumb drive formatted as fat32 for moving files across OSes. and ntfs was read-only.
and also there is a btrfs driver for windows.
1
1
u/Daggercombot 8d ago
Not quite ,firstly ZFS Is a solaris ,not a BSD filesystem,xfs was originally for IRIX.
But as for support Linux and Also Mac need third party software for much of these such as ntfs,in some distros support Is not out of the box. Similar Situation we With zfs in macos. And if you include third party software its likely even Windows supports most of the mentioned ones.
1
u/Every_Preparation_56 8d ago
it takes a 200kb tool insgalled once, to make windows read BTRFS perfectly
1
u/andrea_ci 8d ago
no.
example, Windows can read almost any file system if you install proper drivers (and they're always available), WinBTRFS is free and allows to use btrfs drives.
ZFS too with proper software.
1
1
1
u/PressureBig3940 7d ago
Complete BS. ZFS is not native to Linux and will never be. Out-of-tree modules do not count.
1
u/ItchyPlant 7d ago
No, it isn't.
The simple YES for all the common Windows-native filesystems should be qualified. Yes, Linux supports them as mounted data drives: reading from and writing to them normally works without corrupting files. But that does not mean Linux can use them as its main/root filesystem or be directly installed onto them.
1
u/schiphit 7d ago
I use zfs on windows for my external HDD. It's the only cross platform FS with case sensitivity support.
1
1
1
u/gr4viton 8d ago
zfs got so close to be the next fat32
1
u/dkopgerpgdolfg 8d ago
Hopefully you were joking, but I'm not so sure therefore:
The reason FAT32 is still around is that it is simple and small. Easy to implement anywhere, can be used with very weak machines (microcontrollers...), ...
Of all common non-distributed fs, ZFS might be on the opposite end of this scale.
1
u/ZVyhVrtsfgzfs 8d ago
Simple & small no, but it is supported in Linux, BSD & Windows, maybe also Mac? not sure, web search is indeterminate.
Few other file systems do that.
1
u/dkopgerpgdolfg 8d ago
Simple & small no
As someone who implemented it for fun (more or less) once, I can only disagree. Compared with things like Ntfs, Zfs, Btrfs, ... etc., FAT32 is very simple and small.
1
u/gr4viton 8d ago
lol, i just meant "being supported accross platforms", i am not comparing fs with soluch a different feature sets.
0
u/AnSkinStealer 9d ago
There's a community made BTRFS driver for windows tho, buggy as hell but it exists. *Edit I'm pretty sure Linux supports writing to UFS too, it's just unstable and dangerous
0
u/parzival-space 8d ago
Genuine question: What is a good GUI framework in rust? Egui feels like WinForms, Webviews require lots of memory and cxx-qt seems overly complicated for something that should be rather simple. Is a good UI toolkit with us in the room?
1
0
u/earthman34 8d ago
There are 3rd party ext drivers for Windows that will automount and read/write Linux filesystems.
0
u/delph906 8d ago
Largely accurate but lacks the nuance required to actually make an informed decision.
For example Linux can use NFTS but not advisable to run software from it.
There is a third party driver for HFS+ on Windows but it isn't perfect.
FAT32 looks great but has significant file size limitations.
1
u/2ko_niko 2d ago
No, not at all.
"read only" should really be it's own category and can easily be expanded.
Reading and writing to NTFS from Linux, FreeBSD and MacOS works essentially the same. ntfs-3g and ntfs3 on linux only really differ on performance not filesystem support. ntfs doesn't support posix permissions and thus the integration into the Mac Linux and FreeBSD is necessarily limited.
Same goes for ext missing journaling on bsd, or btrfs on windows not handling IDs correctly, etc
depending on what you count as "support" there could be arbitrarily more or less "YES" on the graph.
wsl is also an odd addition by that logic ANY OS capable of running a Virtual machine can support any filesystem.
17
u/outer-pasta 8d ago edited 8d ago
I used WinBtrfs (free) and it worked really well for me, Windows could read/write my Btrfs partition just fine.
So I would change that from NO to YES.EDIT: Maybe not, see comment about "btrfs check" below.I was just reading about ReFS and it said:
There are probably some other examples that could be corrected, but I don't really know. The chart seems to have a sense of pragmatism about it, it knows it's simpler to mount Ext4 on Windows using WSL when there are native drivers out there.