Post AcndNmBsMsIyyUwu2K by redfish@emacs.ch
 (DIR) More posts by redfish@emacs.ch
 (DIR) Post #AcndNmBsMsIyyUwu2K by redfish@emacs.ch
       2023-12-14T10:30:50Z
       
       0 likes, 1 repeats
       
       Read through ECMA-119 3rd ed. (aka ISO-9660:1999) yesterday and as a filesystem, it seems like it was quite a bit ahead of its time (late 80s/early 90s): 8TB max volume size (with default 2kB block size), max file size is effectively same as max volume size [1], reasonably rich metadata and long filename support [2] by default, support for large extended attributes, backward/forward compatibility with multiple superblocks & directory trees.With the reasonably readable and tight specification it seems like a still-pretty-good choice for long-term archival.On the extended-filenames front, it feels like I need to side with Microsoft and Joliet though: Joliet is largely an interoperability profile that specifies how to use the standard's existing facilities to implement Unicode filenames, and "breaks" the standard only to remove artificial limits that were already pretty dated in the mid-90s. Meanwhile Rock Ridge plops a Unix emulation layer on top of xattrs and calls it a day without even specifying a name encoding. It works, but doesn't really accord with having an archivable, platform-neutral format.[1] Some OSes, notably most (all?) BSD-derived ones have lackluster implementations that are limited to 4GB-1 file size.[2] 31 characters from the set [A-Z0-9_], unless you really need to preserve DOS-and-friends 8.3 compatibility.