Why was exFAT chosen? It's a horrible filesystem, prone to issues and corruption, just like FAT32! What's the reason to not use something robust like ext4?

So what is the correct filename writing of the BIOS files? All in small letters?

SMB 1.0 is insecure, yes, but how does that matter in a multimedia environment? And just not allowing Recalbox connecting to SMB 1.0 actually doesn't stop the samba server from offering SMB 1.0 so the actual security inside a LAN isn't improved at all. I know people having their videos and stuff on very old & dumb SMB-only NAS boxes which still work perfectly fine for the purpose but are made obsolete by software enforcements like that.

Greets!

NTFS file ownership on a Linux-based os like Recalbox should be no issue at all. You could even copy the files to the SD card ignoring NTFS file properties.

NTFS is proprietary and does even cost license fees AFAIK when used in a commercial product, but for Recalbox that doesn't apply.

Wenn sich daran in letzter Zeit nichts geändert hat ist HDMI-CEC abhänging vom verwendeten Grafiktreiber, d. h. dieser muß es unterstützen.
Du hast jetzt leider nicht dazu geschrieben was Recalbox bei Dir hardwaremäßig bedeutet.

First of all thanks for your reply

I know that Recalbox doesn't decide BIOS filenames, but I just wanted to know what the correct naming scheme. So this question still stands.

Your usage pattern of the microSD benefitting from exFAT is ok though you'd get the exact same comfort using NTFS which for 99% of people world wide would also be perfectly fine in terms of compatibility with the added benefit of having a robust filesystem. The best would be if the user could decide during the install process which filesystem he wants to use. Recalbox installer could still propose exFAT as default. Btw exFAT is a devil send

Why was exFAT chosen? It's a horrible filesystem, prone to issues and corruption, just like FAT32! What's the reason to not use something robust like ext4?

So what is the correct filename writing of the BIOS files? All in small letters?

SMB 1.0 is insecure, yes, but how does that matter in a multimedia environment? And just not allowing Recalbox connecting to SMB 1.0 actually doesn't stop the samba server from offering SMB 1.0 so the actual security inside a LAN isn't improved at all. I know people having their videos and stuff on very old & dumb SMB-only NAS boxes which still work perfectly fine for the purpose but are made obsolete by software enforcements like that.

Greets!