Linus Torvalds Comments On The NTFS Linux Driver Situation

[skeevy420]

The use-case is limited to rescue iso's (on dvd or usb stick) and to dual-boot desktop users. For sharing data, a NAS or an exfat partition would also do. Sure it is a nice to have, but less important than 10 years ago. Maybe also that's why Paragon has given this over.

Not to mention that when dual-booting on Linux you can use any Linux file system and on Windows with WSL2 you can use any Linux file system. Having decent cross-platform NTFS support, while nice, isn't as necessary as it was just four or five years ago thanks to Microsoft

[StarterX4]

Btw is Microsoft using it in some way for their Azure etc stuff?

Doubt it. But if so, that would be quite boorish.
They won't contribute, thought it's their FS, but take it all.

[StarterX4]

How is ReFS dead? I think it's even the default fs now in Server 2022.

It's "better", but 2022 still can't boot from it.

[AndyChow]

Because it's not good enough for desktop windows, why else not ship it?

Because the Server licence is 10x the desktop licence? In the closed-sourced world, if it's good enough, you charge more for it.

For example, their storage replica is limited to 2TB on the $1069 version of Server. Want more? Pay $5086 extra.

They segment their market to maximize profits by restricting features to people that both need the feature and are willing to pay for it. That has nothing to do with quality.

[Quackdoc]

Maybe wishful thinking, but I'm sure they are working on porting BTRFS. ReFS had similar functionalities.

there is an independent winbtrfs. but so far I wouldn't trust writing anything with it. it's eaten my data multiple times.

[tuxd3v]

Yes. I recently ran into an issue where it won't read large files properly, throwing spurious ENOENT or returning corrupt data:
https://lore.kernel.org/ntfs3/bf4e96...gmail.com/T/#t

My full mount options are:
ntfs-3g: fmask=113,dmask=002,gid=100,noatime,windows_names, compression
ntfs3: iocharset=utf8,fmask=113,dmask=002,gid=100,noatime

I know nothing about NTFS3, but why are you using 'iocharset=utf8'?
NTFS uses for names of files utf16..have you tested with it?
The mount problem seems to be a not correctly unmounted fs..

One of the things that we should have, is fsck support in package e2fsprogs..

EDIT:
Actually it seems 'iocharset' does a conversion between local system fs and NTFS mount Unicode.. so maybe utf8 is right, if your base fs is utf8...

[cl333r]

Because the Server licence is 10x the desktop licence? In the closed-sourced world, if it's good enough, you charge more for it.

For example, their storage replica is limited to 2TB on the $1069 version of Server. Want more? Pay $5086 extra.

They segment their market to maximize profits by restricting features to people that both need the feature and are willing to pay for it. That has nothing to do with quality.

But server licenses are 100+ times less, got any shittier logic?

[sinepgib]

But server licenses are 100+ times less, got any shittier logic?

So? They're still squeezing extra revenue. If they put the same abilities in all versions just because they sell differently, then they'll have a single price tag, and certainly they won't get $1000 from a home user.

[cl333r]

So? They're still squeezing extra revenue. If they put the same abilities in all versions just because they sell differently, then they'll have a single price tag, and certainly they won't get $1000 from a home user.

They get $1000 not because of ReFS but because server licenses are a priori much more costly. And if ReFS is much better than NTFS then Microsoft is making its desktop OS less competitive, and it has so much money because its history is rooted in its desktop OS.

[gigaplex]

Because the Server licence is 10x the desktop licence? In the closed-sourced world, if it's good enough, you charge more for it.

For example, their storage replica is limited to 2TB on the $1069 version of Server. Want more? Pay $5086 extra.

They segment their market to maximize profits by restricting features to people that both need the feature and are willing to pay for it. That has nothing to do with quality.

That expensive server licence still doesn't get you an OS that officially supports booting from the FS.