Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    great news , it s cool to have so high performances . once again linux fails , but let s hope the driver will be added to kernel .

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by movieman View Post
      LOL.

      Unix filesystems have had ACL support for years and Linux has for about a decade. Practically no-one uses them because they're so easy to screw up in a manner which will make your system pretty much impossible to fix. If I remember correctly, the Unix-style file permissions were created precisely to eliminate the hassle of dealing with ACLs on older operating systems.

      BTW, you do realise that NTFS was 'invented in the previous century', right? As were ACLs?
      It's true, ACLs are harder. Then again, they usually aren't really needed in a single user setup. Thankfully, they degrade to basically Unix-style permissions when you only have one user (plus admin).

      We used ACLs with great success at my old employer (on Linux). So it can be done and without much fuss. We had a single brown bag lunch on the topic and most everybody was fine after that.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by siride View Post
        What is this "smoke and mirrors" game that you are talking about? I mean in particular, not some vague accusation about NTFS. What about its security model is "smoke and mirrors"? And don't claim that the fact that pre-Vista Windows tended to have home users run as admin, or that Vista and later have UAC to allow elevation necessary to operate on files the user doesn't have permissions on. That's a shell, user policy thing, not an issue with NTFS.
        Well the most obvious example of it is when they took away the "cancel" button that gave anybody the ability to login as admin (even if they don't have a username and password). You remember that cancel button? It asks for username and password, you press "cancel" and you're admin? Its basically the same way throughout.

        The problem is that security needs to be built THROUGH, not just layered on top. Its the reason why banks don't just lock the front door, but also have a vault, cameras, and security guards.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
          Well the most obvious example of it is when they took away the "cancel" button that gave anybody the ability to login as admin (even if they don't have a username and password). You remember that cancel button? It asks for username and password, you press "cancel" and you're admin? Its basically the same way throughout.

          The problem is that security needs to be built THROUGH, not just layered on top. Its the reason why banks don't just lock the front door, but also have a vault, cameras, and security guards.
          No, you have it backwards. The security is built through EXCEPT for the top, where, for "user-friendliness" and backwards compatibility reasons, it was simplified or overridden. I don't know why you think cancel buttons count as a failure for the core of the system, which doesn't have a UI part and doesn't even know about cancel buttons and other UI features.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by siride View Post
            No, you have it backwards. The security is built through EXCEPT for the top, where, for "user-friendliness" and backwards compatibility reasons, it was simplified or overridden. I don't know why you think cancel buttons count as a failure for the core of the system, which doesn't have a UI part and doesn't even know about cancel buttons and other UI features.
            You somebody who works for MS trying to spread lies about how MS is "secure"? The FUNCTION is there. The CORE accepted the cancel button. Security is NOT throughout -- just a facade. Its a system built on the (badly implemented) mistake of backwards compatibility.

            Also the reason why virii run rampant on the platform. There's nothing in the way to stop them from propagating. Once they get through the spray-painted plastic wrap veil of security, there's nothing to stop them. That stupid "ask the user if they're really sure" thing that looks like security? Well that only comes up when the user actually tries to do something. Its there to look pretty and pretend that there's something intelligent going on in back there.

            So unless you want to post the source code to back up your claims, it will remain a black box of questionable and/or nonexistent security. All the evidence supports a complete lack of anything beyond the superficial.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
              You somebody who works for MS trying to spread lies about how MS is "secure"? The FUNCTION is there. The CORE accepted the cancel button. Security is NOT throughout -- just a facade. Its a system built on the (badly implemented) mistake of backwards compatibility.

              Also the reason why virii run rampant on the platform. There's nothing in the way to stop them from propagating. Once they get through the spray-painted plastic wrap veil of security, there's nothing to stop them. That stupid "ask the user if they're really sure" thing that looks like security? Well that only comes up when the user actually tries to do something. Its there to look pretty and pretend that there's something intelligent going on in back there.

              So unless you want to post the source code to back up your claims, it will remain a black box of questionable and/or nonexistent security. All the evidence supports a complete lack of anything beyond the superficial.
              I'm not going to argue with someone who won't read documentation or verifiable explanations for how the security model works.

              By the way, have you considered that X display managers run as root? They could easily launch programs as root on behalf of the user, just like WINLOGON can in Windows. Yes, it's not a good idea to run those things as root, but there it is, on both systems. Is the system broken? Or is rather that the policy is broken.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by siride View Post
                I'm not going to argue with someone who won't read documentation or verifiable explanations for how the security model works.
                Do you actually trust documentation that is published by a criminal organization?

                By the way, have you considered that X display managers run as root? They could easily launch programs as root on behalf of the user, just like WINLOGON can in Windows.
                Did you know that XDM is optional? Wincrap isn't.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                  Do you actually trust documentation that is published by a criminal organization?
                  I don't know why them having a few regulation issues (not criminal, btw) means that everything they do and say is complete garbage. Poisoning the well fallacy much?

                  Did you know that XDM is optional? Wincrap isn't.
                  Actually, it is. Not as easily replaceable, but you don't have to run their shell.

                  And who cares, really, if you can click cancel and get admin access. Once you have physical access to a machine, it's considered good as owned. Same with Linux. Linux you just have to boot to runlevel one and you have a root shell. Either that or pop in a livecd. Where are your complaints about Linux?

                  Face it, you are just a freetard spreading FUD and garbage. You don't know what you are talking about and whenever you are called out on your incorrect understanding of how the system works, you respond with accusations of fraud and being paid by MS to say things (lol, I don't work for MS and have spent most of my computing time in the last six years not using Windows, mostly Linux and also Mac OS X). You are another worthless hack giving the Linux community a bad name. Not everything Microsoft does is bad and evil. Not everything the Linux world does is good and right. Welcome to the land of shades of gray.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    X display managers run as root? How's that a problem? The X server itself runs as root, even without a display manager

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                      X display managers run as root? How's that a problem? The X server itself runs as root
                      Yeah, that's a problem too, which is slowly being addressed. You want to run as few things as root as possible in order to minimize attack surface. If the X server is running as root, then if it gets compromised, the infected code can do anything root can do, which is everything. If it were running as some type of sandbox server, the damage would be a lot more limited.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by energyman View Post
                        190mb/sec sounds just like the data never hits the disk.
                        He says "cached write throughput", so you're absolutely right. I think the more interesting question is what the CPU utilization is relative to those speeds. Lots of operations can be sped up by feeding them more cycles, and if one driver gets e.g. 50% of the throughput with 20% of the CPU load, that could be a win depending on the application.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by siride View Post
                          I don't know why them having a few regulation issues (not criminal, btw) means that everything they do and say is complete garbage. Poisoning the well fallacy much?
                          Actually, everything they do and say *is* garbage. There is no question of this. Criminal... ok, maybe that's stretching it, but they certainly are very frequently caught wilfully breaking the law, stealing source code, anti-competitive practices, etc.

                          And on top of that, their product PROVABLY has poor security. If you connect their trash to the internet, you pretty well can't help but get raped by china and loaded up with spyware.

                          Actually, it is. Not as easily replaceable, but you don't have to run their shell.
                          So difficult in fact, that when you're finished, you have a system that doesn't actually do anything. Yeah, I can dd zeros over the entire disk for even better security. Or just pull the power plug. Simply put, without their full bloat, their system doesn't do the only things that their system is ever chosen TO do.

                          And who cares, really, if you can click cancel and get admin access. Once you have physical access to a machine, it's considered good as owned. Same with Linux. Linux you just have to boot to runlevel one and you have a root shell. Either that or pop in a livecd. Where are your complaints about Linux?
                          Who said anything about physical access? Here you go, trying to prove your point by introducing new variables that aren't relevant to the discussion. Physical access? I keep my door locked, thank you very much. No physical access there.

                          Face it, you are just a freetard spreading FUD and garbage.
                          'freetard' -- there it is... the universal word used to attack against those advocating more intelligent choices once you've run out of arguments. Apparently, I've made my point. I'll keep going though, you seem really emotional.

                          You don't know what you are talking about and whenever you are called out on your incorrect understanding of how the system works,
                          No, sorry, I actually do understand how things work, as is evident by my ability to keep the discussion focused on the facts and not trolling with this kind of nonsense personal accusations that you seem to enjoy. You can't think of anything intelligent to say, so you try to attack me on a personal level?

                          you respond with accusations of fraud and being paid by MS to say things (lol, I don't work for MS and have spent most of my computing time in the last six years not using Windows, mostly Linux and also Mac OS X).
                          Really? Where did I accuse you? I've just gone back over everything I've written, and NOWHERE did I accuse you of anything. I asked you a question, which you failed to respond to intelligently, but a question is very far from an accusation.

                          You are another worthless hack giving the Linux community a bad name. Not everything Microsoft does is bad and evil. Not everything the Linux world does is good and right. Welcome to the land of shades of gray.
                          Never suggested that it was. I'm merely pointing out that you seem to have bought into their propaganda. I didn't say that everything open source was perfect, I said that MS is simply far more IMPERFECT. In fact, I actually used to have some level of respect for MS, but that ended when they stopped innovating and shifted their entire business platform over to trolling. I think that happened roughly when it was turned over from Gates to Ballmer.

                          So you know what that means? It means that YOU are the hack giving the Linux community a bad name.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by siride View Post
                            Yeah, that's a problem too, which is slowly being addressed. You want to run as few things as root as possible in order to minimize attack surface. If the X server is running as root, then if it gets compromised, the infected code can do anything root can do, which is everything. If it were running as some type of sandbox server, the damage would be a lot more limited.
                            Ever heard of runlevel 3? X is not a requirement.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                              Ever heard of runlevel 3? X is not a requirement.
                              Same is true of Windows - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l...8WS.10%29.aspx

                              The Server Core installation option is an option that you can use for installing Windows Server 2008 or Windows Server 2008 R2. A Server Core installation provides a minimal environment for running specific server roles, which reduces the maintenance and management requirements and the attack surface for those server roles.

                              To accomplish this, the Server Core installation option installs only the subset of the binary files that are required by the supported server roles. For example, the Explorer shell is not installed as part of a Server Core installation. Instead, the default user interface for a server running a Server Core installation is the command prompt.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                                Sure, but you can't actually *do anything* with it. Might as well pull the plug for maximum security.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X