48
The "NTFS Resurrection" Has Occurred For Linux 7.1 (www.phoronix.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 6 months ago (13 children)

I'm all for more compatibility but there's also literally no reason to ever use NTFS unless you're mounting a windows drive

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah I've said it many times that NTFS's allocation algorithm is total ass, and the only reason Microsoft never bothered to make a successor FS is because SSDs eliminated the need for avoiding fragmentation.

    ext4, ufs, and apple's FSs all do a vastly superior job on HDDs, with ext4 not even beginning to fragment until you hit like 95% drive capacity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    They tried actually, the story of WinFS deserves it's own video essay, there's many reasons it never came to happen, mainly just because the project was insane in scope and there was never the resources required to complete it. It's been overshadowed by journaling and SSD improvements over the years to the NTFS standard. The replacement ReFS is stable but there's no conversion path, and it was build to be a file system for databases, not for operating systems so it's been "cribbed" to be bootable. But should be the standard for Windows in 5-10 years. By which time ZFS should be becoming the Linux standard.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS?wprov=sfla1

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Mounting windows drives is a major reason though. Windows still holds majority of the desktop os market. How do you expect them to switch to, or even try Linux if they can't access their windows files?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    ??? Yeah, that's exactly what I already said?

    unless you're mounting a windows drive

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Syntactically correct, but the way you phrased it implies that that's like a super duper niche usecase that no one uses when it really isn't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    No, it emphasises that there's no reason to use NTFS unless you're mounting a windows drive, like I said. It does not imply anything about the "nicheness" of the one usecase, although, yes, it in fact is super duper niche. Being niche does not mean unimportant.

    Most all linux systems will never see an NTFS formatted partition.

    This isn't an argument against increased compatibility, which is only a good thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    "There's literally no reason to ever use it, except for the one time you literally have a reason to ever use it."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    That's how exceptions work, yes. I'm glad you've confirmed that you understood correctly what I was communicating with language. What's the problem, you're offended by the word "literally" or...?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Your comment was a useless tautology. I'm surprised anyone upvoted it.

    Your comment offended me. You could have phrased it so much nicer. I'll have a go at doing so:

    I'm glad it's being updated. No one should use it for a Linux drive, but it's good that people can safely mount old Windows drives with it.

    That's saying the exact same thing without being so cynical about it. These Linux communities on Lemmy are just so damn cynical. I get tired of it, and I chose you as an outlet for my frustration.

    Phrasing it the way you did is such a circle-jerky, virtue-signaling thing to do. Why even make that kind of comment?

    If you think your comment was totally benign and no one should have thought it was a weird thing to say, then I don't know what to tell you, and I think you just need to accept my lighthearted mockery of your strangely worded, cynical comment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    These Linux communities on Lemmy are just so damn cynical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    I kept thinking about this, and it wasn't just that it's cynical. I don't know why I got hung up on that. I think I was stoned.

    My real problem was, in fact, the use of the words "literally" and "ever". If you say, "There's literally no reason to ever...", that means 0 reasons. That does not leave room for exceptions. A then you immediately follow it up with an exception. 😑

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent