Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by siride View Post
    I have and it doesn't.

    Listen up fanboys: it's not 1998 anymore. Windows is reasonably secure, even for regular users (I don't get calls from my mom asking me to fix a virus anymore since she's been on Vista with MS Security Essentials). Windows has a modern kernel and a modern filesystem. All of these tired arguments from the Windows 3.1 and 95 era need to die. They needed to die years ago.
    Sorry fanboy, but it seems it's still in 95 era in some terms. I have to deal with infected windowses very often. The security is still damn weak on Windows. Oh, Linux, OS X, *BSD, Solaris - I can say all of these operating systems have modern kernels. When Windows will die the arguments (which are still true) will die with it.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
      and i wish it were still true that Linux had a big security advantage. It's not. Those saying it does are like the Mac fanboys claiming that the lack of viruses prove how superior OSX security is, which is a joke.
      Do you know any OS X virus that infects system when user connects to internet? I've only heard about trojan horses on OS X and nothing more.

      Comment


      • #78
        Windows' lack of security is mainly caused by the huge amount of Windows viruses out on the net. Vista/7 are quite secure, but because there are so many viruses, they can never beat Linux.

        Some people call an OS secure based on the number of infects. Other people based on the difficulty a virus has to infect a system.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by AlbertP View Post
          Windows' lack of security is mainly caused by the huge amount of Windows viruses out on the net. Vista/7 are quite secure, but because there are so many viruses, they can never beat Linux.

          Some people call an OS secure based on the number of infects. Other people based on the difficulty a virus has to infect a system.
          Exactly. However, I'm mainly interested in the ways systems can be infected and I don't judge Windows security basing on number of viruses - it's much more popular, so there are more viruses. In that case I consider it's fair to judge by basing on design and security policy. In example Win7 compared to Vista:

          Windows 7 takes a step backwards by relaxing the restrictions enforced by UAC to make installing and running legacy programs easier, but at the cost of security.

          Comment


          • #80
            8 thread pages with many offtopic replies, and all based on speaking instead of a true benchmark.
            Isn't all that useless?

            Comment


            • #81
              Dubios in Enterprise

              Sure, this thing is fast. But is it safe? Probably not.

              Either something is slow and safe (lots of checksums and other safety calculations) or it is fast and unsafe (bypass all checks, no time is spent in doing checks). I dont see Enterprise use something that is unsafe. What happens if you cut the power, will the entire filesystem be corrupted then? No, I would not trust my data on such a filesystem. And you also consider that already the normal NTFS is unsafe and might corrupt your data:
              http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ho...ta-at-risk/169
              And in this driver, they have bypassed even more safety than in normal NTFS? How unsafe is it?


              Most probably, the developer can also modify ext4 according to same principles, and make ext4 faster (but unsafe). But, I would not use an unsafe version of ext4. I prefer slow and safe, rather than fast and maybe corrupted data. I would think: is my data silently corrupted now? How can I know that my data is still intact? There is no way of knowing that! (see the link above). In the link, there is a PhD thesis talking about silently corrupted data.

              Comment


              • #82
                1. No one needs NTFS driver - people usually use it to access stuff on microsht or repair it. With linux box. No need for 10x access.
                2. NTFS permission system is a cumbersome joke! Linux 888 is so simplistic and efficient!
                3. Consider the efficiency - with ext4 I have never ever had to reinstall - the filesystem ALWAYS recovered safely. In ntfs and windows xp times I have been reinstalling it on monthly basis.
                4. NTFS has badblocks... lols!
                5. Tuxera is closed source software. NTFS is proprietary.
                6. No data about precaching (how many MBs does tuxera waste for write-ahead cache?)

                EXT4 is tried and true system, opensource and tested. Vs wild claims of proprietary developer about unused cases on offtopic system.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                  1. No one needs NTFS driver - people usually use it to access stuff on microsht or repair it. With linux box. No need for 10x access.
                  2. NTFS permission system is a cumbersome joke! Linux 888 is so simplistic and efficient!
                  3. Consider the efficiency - with ext4 I have never ever had to reinstall - the filesystem ALWAYS recovered safely. In ntfs and windows xp times I have been reinstalling it on monthly basis.
                  4. NTFS has badblocks... lols!
                  5. Tuxera is closed source software. NTFS is proprietary.
                  6. No data about precaching (how many MBs does tuxera waste for write-ahead cache?)

                  EXT4 is tried and true system, opensource and tested. Vs wild claims of proprietary developer about unused cases on offtopic system.
                  1. You just provided your use case while denying it exists. Fancy.
                  2. You're incredibly wrong. My god, I just have no words.
                  3. Reinstalling is unrelated to a filesystem maintaining its integrity. (As you didn't bother to mention a filesystem problem or the actions you attempted to repair it, I'm assuming that none existed and you simply lack education in the basic tenets of logic.)
                  4. In which you make it obvious that you're a snot-nosed brat with no idea what he's talking about.

                  Epilogue: You realise NTFS has been around for more than a decade, right? 5 and 6 are surprisingly correct (if lifted directly from other posts in this thread), but crapping on NTFS in your ignorance is rather uncouth. Though I find the use of Windows in any application hilarious at best (embedded is great-- love the BSOD vending machines; comedy gold), you cannot deny that NTFS has been widely deployed in almost every sort of environment imaginable (inside our atmosphere). That it's still capable of functioning at anything approaching a modern level (even bearing in mind the various versions) is nothing short of impressive.

                  Your disdain almost certainly comes unfounded from the position of one who is not a programmer and knows nothing of the craft. You should stop making words now.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                    Sure, this thing is fast. But is it safe? Probably not.
                    .... the normal NTFS is unsafe and might corrupt your data:...
                    i had some big troubles with ntfs drives when i used the 512 byte sector hard-drive , i have jumped to 4096 byte sector hard-drive mostly because that is the size wiwi like to use for formatting . then i do not regret it at all .
                    [i have 6 2To drive of them , that are not very fast and 2 ssd 64Go for wiwi and fedora]

                    i use Auslogics Disk Defrag and Defraggler , that are both very good for defrags

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      That's why all this talk about its security is a bullshit.
                      Are you sure about that? http://www.symantec.com/security_res...032400-0103-99

                      Linux.Psybot is a worm that spreads between embedded devices running Linux MIPS, such as routers and DSL modems.

                      No interaction with the user needed. Awesome security, that.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                        Windows and Linux security is on par with each other, and pretending otherwise by burying our heads in the sand just means that it won't ever get any better.
                        Not really, when the most popular web hosting OS goes 3 months without a security update, any positive comparison between the two gets shot in the ass.

                        Linux security is only on par with Microsoft's when someone is being paid to provide security patches for the OS, otherwise it is a rather unfunny joke that ends up with your sites being used to host lolcats.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                          Are you sure about that? http://www.symantec.com/security_res...032400-0103-99

                          Linux.Psybot is a worm that spreads between embedded devices running Linux MIPS, such as routers and DSL modems.

                          No interaction with the user needed. Awesome security, that.
                          Haha, awesome joke!

                          Once executed, the worm attempts to obtain a shell in the remote computer using the following methods:
                          • Bruteforcing user name and passwords of administration interfaces
                          • Using an exploit for other vulnerable daemon

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                            Linux security is only on par with Microsoft's when someone is being paid to provide security patches for the OS, otherwise it is a rather unfunny joke that ends up with your sites being used to host lolcats.
                            No, it's on pair with Microsoft when you open all ports, run all services and every installed applications as well. If nothing happens then you have to find some trojan horse and run it.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                              Are you sure about that? http://www.symantec.com/security_res...032400-0103-99

                              Linux.Psybot is a worm that spreads between embedded devices running Linux MIPS, such as routers and DSL modems.

                              No interaction with the user needed. Awesome security, that.
                              Is this supposed to be proof of something? Bruteforcing of weak password against a router running (which must have enabled external administration). Weak password on a connected system allowing remote login, no security can save you there.

                              Full threat assessment from Symantec on Linux.Psy

                              Wild Level: Low
                              Number of Infections: 0 - 49
                              Number of Sites: 0 - 2
                              Geographical Distribution: Low
                              Threat Containment: Easy
                              Removal: Easy

                              If this was the best you could dig up then I'd say you made Linux look very secure. Or am I missing something?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                                If this was the best you could dig up then I'd say you made Linux look very secure. Or am I missing something?
                                You have probably missed this:

                                Not really, when the most popular web hosting OS goes 3 months without a security update, any positive comparison between the two gets shot in the ass.
                                To proof Linux' security its updates have to be delayed for about 3 months (I'd give one more week as a bonus, so we can boast we're better than Windows, because we holded the place longer).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X