On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:18 PM, dmccunney <dennis.mccun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Actually, if you're lucky enough to have Win2k installed atop FAT32 ....
>> One of the things I was *happy* about in moving from Win98SE to Win2K
>> Pro was being able to use NTFS. IT's far more robust, and supports
>> the concept of file ownership and permissions. (It supports hardlinks
>> and symlinks, too.)
> NT 4 wasn't the same as NT 5 and NT 6. They all (IIRC) used different
> variants of NTFS anyways. So it's not like there is only one universal
> standard. Only with Vista were symlinks fully supported. So that
> leaves out 2K (except with third-party hacks, perhaps).
Each added things. Win2K/XP uses NTFS5. That supports hard inks out
of the box, though the functionality is not exposed by default, and
you need MS resource kit or third-party tools to use it.
Symlinks are available on Vista/Win7, but I found a driver that adds
them to XP, and turns out to work under 2K, too.
> Yes, it adds features and tries to have security. But that's really
> only partially useful (e.g. over network or against accidental
> destruction). You can still break things via booting other OSes, but
> only if you have access to the physical machine. It's also less useful
> for a single user setup with minimal network access.
Added security is useful on the local machine, too. NTFS supports the
ideal of different users having different permissions, and you may not
be the only person that uses a machine.
> And BTW, NTFS needs much higher requirements than other file systems,
> so it's not suitable for all devices, e.g. flash drives (exFAT).
It's *possible* to format a flash drive as NTFS. But since the point
of flash drives is using them on different machines, you probably
don't want to. NTFS doesn't add anything you need for that usage.
>> I've spent way to much time over the years dealing with trashed FAT
>> file systems. CHKDSK could assign orphaned clusters to files, but
>> then what? Mostly, they'd be unusable and require deletion. When I've
>> had NTFS filesystem issues, CHKDSK has matter of factly recovered
>> orphaned clusters, assigned them to the files they belonged
>> to, and recreated the directory that had problems. The only time I
>> saw that not happen was in the case where a directory entry happened
>> to be sitting on a bad disk block.
> Despite its superiority, NTFS still needs to be defragmented
> semi-regularly. And recovery is not guaranteed. Yes, it's journaling,
> so that's good, but it's not perfect by any stretch. Though I'm not
> really saying I prefer FAT, but it is what it is. (A real minimalist
> wouldn't use a file system at all, e.g. Forth blocks. You don't need
> files just to "compute". It's all just 1s and 0s on the hard drive
*Every* file system is likely to need defragging at some point. NTFS
is fragmentation resistant, but cannot eliminate it. For that matter,
one of the goals of ext4 on Linux is to support eventual
And no, recovery is not guaranteed: hardware problems can hose you.
But NTFS is less likely to *get* corrupted, and it it does, it's a lot
more likely to be recoverable.
>> You *can* run 2K on FAT32. I *wouldn't*.
> It's moot because Vista (and successors) removed that feature.
It's not moot if you *are* running 2K.
AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete
security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and
efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls
from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial.
Freedos-user mailing list