EDIT: I made my decision: Whatever is better for Linux Mint or not, I really don't care. I spent now much time thinking about using FAT or NTFS, and as always my conclusion is, that NTFS is by far superior. There is really no point in ever using something other than NTFS, except for compatibility with other OS or to make bootable drives for UEFI. But because Linux has now native support of NTFS, there is no point in using anything other than NTFS (Especially in the context of still keeping it compatible with Windows - But if there doesn't need compatibility with Windows, better use EXT4 because it's native to Linux).
So even if Linux has a longer history of supporting FAT than NTFS, I still take the risk and use NTFS. I will just keep my backup schedule, and whatever happens will be fine.
There are some rare cases where it needs to be FAT32, for example when preparing an bootable Live USB for Linux. But other than that I don't see any reason to use FAT over NTFS ever.
So as I mentioned in my other thread, I create this thread here, because it was going too far off-topic.
Both NTFS and FAT32 are supported on Linux Mint, but as far as I understand, even though it can be used to write and read, it's rather still only "tolerated" than the best choice, because Linux has it's own filesystems natively.
But let's say you have to chose between NTFS and FAT32, which one is the better on Linux?
I know very well about the differences, and on Windows I clearly would say NTFS is in most cases better, because of the journaling and other things.
I also know that FAT32 is more compatible to other OS like Mac, which in my case is not important.
But now just looking at Linux Mint and ignoring Windows and Mac entirely: Which file system is better on Linux of these both?
Even on Linux I would say that NTFS is in many cases better, because of journaling, but is NTFS journaling even working on Linux?
I also heared that NTFS-support is a pretty recent feature to Linux kernel, and that FAT has a much longer history on being supported by Linux.
Does that imply that FAT32 and exFAT are better on Linux than NTFS?
Or does it make no difference at all, and I could chose any of these (considering the other restrictions as file size, etc.)?
So even if Linux has a longer history of supporting FAT than NTFS, I still take the risk and use NTFS. I will just keep my backup schedule, and whatever happens will be fine.
There are some rare cases where it needs to be FAT32, for example when preparing an bootable Live USB for Linux. But other than that I don't see any reason to use FAT over NTFS ever.
So as I mentioned in my other thread, I create this thread here, because it was going too far off-topic.
Both NTFS and FAT32 are supported on Linux Mint, but as far as I understand, even though it can be used to write and read, it's rather still only "tolerated" than the best choice, because Linux has it's own filesystems natively.
But let's say you have to chose between NTFS and FAT32, which one is the better on Linux?
I know very well about the differences, and on Windows I clearly would say NTFS is in most cases better, because of the journaling and other things.
I also know that FAT32 is more compatible to other OS like Mac, which in my case is not important.
But now just looking at Linux Mint and ignoring Windows and Mac entirely: Which file system is better on Linux of these both?
Even on Linux I would say that NTFS is in many cases better, because of journaling, but is NTFS journaling even working on Linux?
I also heared that NTFS-support is a pretty recent feature to Linux kernel, and that FAT has a much longer history on being supported by Linux.
Does that imply that FAT32 and exFAT are better on Linux than NTFS?
Or does it make no difference at all, and I could chose any of these (considering the other restrictions as file size, etc.)?
