If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No announcement yet.
Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux
@siride, droidhacker is mostly right about almost everything he said.
windows' security is severely flawed, droidhacker did a pretty decent job explaining why. in a unix based system, nobody has access to any place but their own home folder, except for root. anyone who knows linux always HIGHLY discourages ANYONE from logging in as root at any time. thats why sudo was made.
going back to things you've said:
no, like i said before, you can't just do whatever the hell you want on a unix based system. without root access, X is protected from outsiders. whether it's a stranger using your computer or remote access, it isn't easy to just suddenly become root and go nuts. just because root is running a program it doesn't mean suddenly everyone can control it. you can't even end X without being root.
in windows, you don't have to be admin to make things happen automatically. you don't have to be admin to screw up the system by deleting or replacing files. in windows, it's fairly common for anyone to get administrative access. once you get a taste of administrative privilages, everything like UAC (which many people disable out of getting annoyed by it) or ntfs' special permissions do nothing to protect you. this is where droidhacker is getting the impression that it's just smoke and mirrors. those features do work, but they are easily avoidable for the average windows computer.
uh... this is what the entire argument is all about, so of course people care. your machine should be protected regardless of who and where someone is accessing it. any unix-like system set up by a competent person is not going to set up their computer, allowing someone to "boot to runlevel one" and "have a root shell". why? because you need a password to be root or do things as root - something windows often DOESN'T have set up. i have seen so many windows xp, vista, and 7 setups where users have admin access and no password, and windows doesn't ask for one. linux these days doesn't even let you continue an install process without putting in a root password. root handles the booting process but it doesn't mean you can control it and suddently get root access when it's done. you can set it up to do that, but you're a complete idiot if you let that happen, and as usual, you need root access to do it in the first place.
as for the live cd, that can access any os. however, if you're really that paranoid about someone using such a thing on your computer, a smart person would use some form of encryption.
You pretty much ignore all of the counterpoints I already stated, so I don't see the point in making a full response to say the same things I already said. You are factually incorrect in half the places, and inaccurate or misleading elsewhere and right on about one or two points.
Does Windows have a CLI option to replace their GUI configuration dialogs?
Like the whole Control Panel is all GUI based, is there some way to do that configuration from a CLI? It might be possible to do in the registry, but the whole registry is a screwed up mess. Is there even a CLI registry browser in Windows. Regedit.exe is a GUI program. :/
I do know that you can edit the registry through Batch, but you have to know ahead of time what keys you're editing. I'm not aware of a browser like Regedit where you can just peruse the registry.
Another problem with running Windows without a GUI is that it'd be a pain in the ass to install software, not just because most programs require a GUI, but because there isn't a package manager and there isn't a built-in wget/curl utility for downloading executables. So you would use another computer and a browser to download the file then transfer it to your server.
The standard CMD shell just seems like it's lacking too much to be the sole interface to a system.
hmm first here it goes about a filesystem. Nearly all of you just belived that advertisement for a commercial product, before I see some independent tests I think its even a waste of time to talk about it.
The talk about windows vs linux is funny. I got critesised in this forum when I did say: "its useless because its proprietary closed source stuff", because then I would speak for all linux users.
But basicly the most import stuff, why linux and other free/open software/os is better, because its free ^^, thats the main reason. Windows for desktop is good enough for most tasks, you can argue with gnome-shell or something, or for development windows also sucks, but there is nothing some propriatary software can not even out at least to a near point, and some stuff is even better on windows. (opengl seems to be stuck and dx11 seems to be better technicaly) But thats the point, if you care about open source there is no reason to defend your os/software of your choice or attack a blob some other people like to use.
Its just if you want to have the 4 freedoms or you want to be a begging mightyless guy that have to bless for wonders of your masters (developers/ms...)
If you want to give away stuff or copy stuff without getting accused to be a criminial on a ship (pirate). And security because it got so much quoted before, In the windows world you dont know about it, because only one company knows, what they did write in the code. so bugs are in both worlds, but willful included anti-features are only possible in windows or other propriatary code blobs. and we know it did happen several times and sometimes we did not notice it and it is in there anyway because wihtout the code you cant surely find all this anti-features. As example the sony-rootkit.
So yes its also possible in opensource code, the change that nobody with good intentions did fly over the code is very low, or you can do it yourself on smaller stuff that not so many people use.
It's easy to make a file system fast when you don't care about your user's data.
Trure. And without knowing the details such tests are meaningless. Somebody already said this before btw. It's funny to see how some companies want to earn money on Linux. I can understand ZFS, but ntfs?
A Phoronix reader has pointed out that a developer at Tuxera is claiming their proprietary NTFS Linux kernel driver makes the Microsoft file-system the fastest choice under Linux.
Why didn't they choose Ext4? It doesn't fit, because people will notice where the catch is?
Also, an embedded 800 MHz system? Seriously? You use that as a basis for showcasing this FS driver? It's probably ARM, too.
Useful for cellphones? Maybe, if Anton's initial embedded data are reliable. Useful for quad-core desktops with 6 GB of RAM? To be proven with benchmarks. Useful for high-end computing on quad-processor Xeon HexaCore servers with 64GB of RAM and 10kRPM SAS disks in RAID10? Extremely doubtful.
It's easy to write a driver that "outperforms" some other driver by either (a) sacrificing data integrity, or (b) optimizing for a particular workload (small systems, big systems, single-core, multi-core, etc). But what makes a truly great filesystem is one that performs reasonably well on all systems, and scales well from an embedded SoC all the way up to your 256-processor supercomputer. The focus with ext4 has always been on scalability, not cutting corners to be fast on an embedded system.
Also, the delayed metadata committing sounds dangerous. Every second you don't commit that data to disk is a second that the user's files are at risk. If you don't completely commit the journal, the metadata and the file data to the media when userspace calls fsync(), you aren't doing your job as a filesystem. I can't read the code, since it's proprietary, so maybe Tuxera NTFS does respect fsync() semantics, but my guess is that if they're going to cut corners somewhere to get higher performance, it would be there.
Exactly the same kind of thing that caused VirtualBox to have extremely high performance in some scenarios. Basically using a RAM-based filesystem in lieu of actually committing things to disk like the user asked.
Technical issues aside, the proprietary aspect of this would ensure that I am no more likely to try this product than KQ Infotech's ZFS driver (which I've never installed, even after it went open source).
It's funny to see how some companies want to earn money on Linux. I can understand ZFS, but ntfs?
Linux is also used as a base for firmware in a lot of consumer electronics, e.g., nowadays many modern television sets have ntfs support, so users can share movies between their PC and TV through a USB drive.
Since Microsoft Windows is still the dominating desktop OS and it supports a rather limited set of file systems of which FAT's 4GB file size limit can be problematic for content in HD, the choice to also add ntfs support is easy.