WinFS is certainly vapourware, but btrfs isn't - I'm using it as I type this. Sure it's not yet ready for general release, that that day isn't far off.
As for NTFS? The current incarnation is a good example of the current generation, with all the journalling features and suchlike that one might expect in this day and age. But please don't make the mistake of thinking that NTFS under windows 7 is the same beast that it was under NT, the closest equivalent would be ext2/3/4 - where ext4 can be easily mounted as ext2, and "upgrading" is little more than adding some extra metadata and control structures on the disc. Windows just did this automatically for you when upgrading. The next generation is of course zfs and btrfs, with btrfs seeming to have the technically superior design. Microsoft are going to have to match this at some point, so it'll be interesting to see what they come up with. And Apple? I'd like to think that they'll reverse their decision to drop ZFS, but more likely they'll mandate HFS+ as the one true standard and simply respond to dissenters by banning them from iTunes. On 28 April 2010 14:18, opinali <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 abr, 04:45, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > (e.g. see Linux's pathetic advanced- > > > filesystem story, it's not yet in the place that Windows was >10 years > > > ago with NTFS.) > > > > Now you're being ridiculous. Let me guess, next you're going to claim > > that Microsoft's next-gen-NTFS (WinFS) was superior to state-of-the- > > art on Linux (BTRFS)? Of course the former had to be cancelled, while > > the latter is slated to become de-facto/default within a few years. > > Both filesystems are vaporware until they are actually released and > widely deployed. Read my recent post - yeah Vista didn't get the > database-like filesystem that Microsoft has been promising since the > Cairo plans; what what you already have in Vista&Win7 is actually a > lot, remarkably atomic distributed transactions. I have tested the > WinFS beta when Vista was on beta, and it was a dog. Will probably > take another full rewrite or two - as usual in many Microsoft projects > - until they have something usable. They are clearly working on that; > Windows Server needs its own tech to compete with NetApp, ZFS and the > like - perhaps the relational stuff was just the wrong vision, so it's > difficult to tell what kind of advanced FS they will ship when they > finally do. Meanwhile, I think btrfs will ship first as Oracle is > behind it, not to mention that Oracle nows owns ZFS too and they can > join forces and deliver some wonderful filesystem tech, hopefully for > the benefit of the OSS community too. > > A+ > Osvaldo > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail/google talk: [email protected] wave: [email protected] skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
