Re: kernel and wifi
On 07/16/2012 05:28 PM, Ben Armstrong wrote:
>> I have another question: why are live systems always on fat32 filesystem and not ext2, ext3, ext4 filesystem?
> Simpler for the bootloader to deal with. We use syslinux, which likes FAT.
SYSLINUX (the project is written in all caps) consists of a series of
bootloaders, amonst others syslinux (for booting from fat/vfat/ntfs),
and extlinux (for booting from ext*/btrfs).
there's no reason why we shouldn't support using any supported
filesystem by the SYSLINUX bootloaders, however, it was always made the
case that for the default images, we should use fat so that people with
legacy operating systems can still see the content of the sticks.
> Besides which, none of
> the additional features offered by these filesystems really makes a difference at this level. All of
> the important stuff (the live filesystem itself) is inside of the squashfs which is not FAT, anyway.
true; however, personally, i would prefere using ext4 just for the sake
of using a more modern and a linux filesystem, rather than fat.
Address: Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern