benny1967 | # 351 | 2015-01-31, 14:36 | Report

How much did you pay for the tablet, btw?

benny1967 | # 352 | 2015-01-31, 14:45 | Report

So first you say my money was for Jolla's official support of non-standard memory cards >32GB in the tablet, meaning I could turn to them and complain if they don't work as expected.

Now you're not so sure any more and think such issues are better handled in a TMO thread? That's what I paid for?

So the bottom line is:

In the original tablet before the stretch goal, Jolla guaranteed SDHC cards to work. I could get SDXC-cards to work if I re-formated them, but was on my own if I ran into trouble.

After the stretch goal was reached, for a short time it seemed Jolla would just support SDXC cards. No problem at all.

Now they don't want to support SDXC cards any more. I could get them to work if I re-format them (haven't we been there before?), but rcolistete suggests I'd rather seek support on TMO than from Jolla, because maybe the level of "support" of memory cards >32GB isn't fully defined yet.

A convincing story for a press release, I'd say.

Copernicus | # 353 | 2015-01-31, 14:48 | Report

This leads to an interesting question: how does one advertise that they have a device that can use memory cards labeled as "SDXC" cards (and having "SDXC" plastered all over them), if the term "SDXC" is now illegal? The Jolla tablet will certainly have no trouble using these cards.

I gotta say, fusing a piece of hardware together with a piece of software gets awfully confusing, when the only thing tying the two is the say-so of a standards commission.

benny1967 | # 354 | 2015-01-31, 14:57 | Report

It might even be that using "SD" altogether isn't an option any more; I cannot really believe this, but it was mentioned once by a sailor in one of the threads during the shitstorm at TJC.

Actually, it's the opposite of confusing, it's pretty simple: Just follow the standard. That's what it's for. It ensures interoperability, which is key here.

rcolistete | # 355 | 2015-01-31, 15:26 | Report

SDXC logo needs exFAT support. So Jolla Tablet won't have SDXC logo.
The stretch goal announced in 27/11/2015 by Jolla cites MicroSDHC, not MicroSDXC :
You are twisting the facts and the numbers (votes). So about the "[Poll] File System(s) support on SD card for Jolla Tablet" :
- 1st answer with 144 votes for no-exFAT as default (but optional via purchase in Jolla Store), using btrfs for > 32GB and optional luks;
- 2nd answer with 70 votes for no-exFAT, also suggesting f2fs;
- 3rd answer with 58 votes for exFAT/SDXC support;
- 4th answer with 47 votes for luks & encryption;
- 5th answer with 35 votes for no-exFAT;
- 6th answer with 35 votes for no-exFAT by default, but available by purchasing (in Jolla Store, etc);
- 7th answer with 18 votes for no-exFAT, suggesting ext4/2 +luks +lvm.
Conclusion : pro-exFAT as default votes were a clear minority (58 votes), versus 302 votes asking for no-exFAT or exFAT only as optional paid feature (package form Jolla Store, etc).

It is the active community that is visible. You and many here pro-exFAT could vote. In a community, if somebody doesn't vote, other people decides for him/her. So, if you want your wishes be considered, be an active member of the Sailfish OS community, e.g., vote in many important issues in TJC. It is better than posting many comments here, as Jolla listen mainly to TJC topics & votes.

---

Last edited by rcolistete; 2015-01-31 at 16:01.

rcolistete | # 356 | 2015-01-31, 15:40 | Report

I'm not saying that at all. Your money was not spent in any perk for microSDXC support in Jolla Tablet.

About your question : microSDXC cards work now in Jolla smartphone, just use exFAT (compiled from source code) or ext4/btrfs/fat32. I have a 64GB microSD with ext4 on my Jolla smartphone.

So now you are twisting my words everytime ?

I suggested the TMO topic to benchmark and compare the real speeds of microSD cards with respect different file systems : FAT32, ext4, btrfs, exFAT, etc.

You're making words from the wind.

---

Last edited by rcolistete; 2015-01-31 at 16:58. Reason: Typo fixed

strongm | # 357 | 2015-01-31, 15:53 | Report

Au contraire. The use of the term SDHC means FAT32. SDXC means exFAT. The format is part of the standard. Use a different format and you no longer meet the standard and cannot use the trademarked name. So yes, by stating that they would be using microSDHC Jolla were explicitly specifying the format

Note that in the latest info Jolla now simply refer to them as memory cards.

Copernicus | # 358 | 2015-01-31, 16:11 | Report

Hmm. It certainly ensures interoperability with participants who have paid the requisite 300,000 dollars.

Personally, I like the idea of being able to format my storage media in the way that I prefer. (I'm not a fan of the fact that about 10% of the capacity of every SD card is pre-allocated for DRM copy protection. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_...#Card_security for more details.) I may lose interoperability with the well-heeled SDXC participants, but there are definite advantages to not following the standard...

rcolistete | # 359 | 2015-01-31, 16:21 | Report

So, you've voted for an answer explicitely stating :
So Jolla listened to your (and other) votes which selected to have no exFat licencing (as default), being a majority among TJC votes.

By the way, i see in my TJC account that I've voted in 03/12/2014 for the 3rd answer, asking SDXC support in Jolla Tablet, i.e., "Support 128GB SDXC cards out of the box and pay the license fee". My wish was the minority one, but I'm ok with this outcome as the majority of Sailfish community thinks differently.

So be careful reading and voting in TJC. I've voted for exFAT support as default, you've voted for no-exFAT as default. Now you are complaining about no-exFAT support, while I'm not. That's funny, no ?

benny1967 | # 360 | 2015-01-31, 17:06 | Report

There is no such thing as SDHC >32GB. SDHC is defined by being <32GB and formated as FAT32. Whatever a Ext4-formated card >32GB is, it is certainly not SDHC.


... and you may want to count again. In said 'poll', the results were:

btrfs: 264
ExFAT from store: 199
f2fs: 123
ExFAT default: 113
Ext2/3/4: 89
XFS: 72
UDF: 58
FAT/FAT32: 18

Which makes:

ExFAT total: 312
btrfs: 264
f2fs: 123
Ext2/3/4: 89
XFS: 72
UDF: 58
FAT/FAZ32: 18

(Interesting, btw, that Jolla now goes for the solution that gathered roughly 10% of the total votes and this is sold to us as "listening to the community".)

The fact that ExFAT gained the most votes is even more relevant as the poll took ExFAT for granted and asked for additional file systems to support. (When one user wrote his answer in favor of ExFAT, he got rebuked by a moderator who wrote "You'll get ExFAT anyway, this question is about better support for open file systems.")

The question in the poll wasn't about having or not having ExFAT.