<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 13:57, Sascha Silbe <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sascha-ml-ui-sugar-devel@silbe.org">sascha-ml-ui-sugar-devel@silbe.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Part of me also wonders if using EXTLINUX might not be easier for you, too.<br> </blockquote></div> Part of our problem is that we don't know what quirks actually exist in real hardware, so we're trying to come up with something that hopefully is as compatible as possible. Using FAT is part of that.<br> If we'd know for sure using ext2 would work equally there's no reason not to use it. BTW: How does Windows handle USB sticks with "unknown" formatting?</blockquote></div><br>Windows cannot handle USB devices that have more than one partition, as far as I am aware. Windows treats unknown partitions as unformatted, and, if it displayed the disk at all, would prompt the user to format the device. <br> <br>ext(2, 3) is supported in Windows via a free (as in beer) kernel driver.<br><br>If ext3 were to cause problems, we could loopmount a ext3 partition on a fat filesystem, but there would be no reason that it would have negative effects. <br> <br>-- <br>Luke Faraone<br><a href="http://luke.faraone.cc">http://luke.faraone.cc</a><br>