On 28 abr, 10:37, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
No mistake, see my other messages commenting NTFS features versus NT releases. I use WinNT as my main desktop OS, at work and at home, since v3.51. Yes not all modern features were available ten years ago; but it's just as wrong to say that NTFS was equivalent to ext2/3. By Win2K's time, NTFS was already extremely mature with 90% of its modern features (the very latest stuff in Vista/Win7 is mostly useful for advanced applications and servers) > 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. Yes this has been interesting to watch - how far can Apple go with a crappy filesystem, or what they are going to put in its place. A+ Osvaldo > 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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- 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.
