How can Apple justify not supporting NTFS natively in the current year?

How can Apple justify not supporting NTFS natively in the current year?

Attached: thumbstick.jpg (390x390, 10K)

MS does not let them license it

It does support it natively. Read only by default, Read-Write by setting a kernel flag. It's just not supported but since you're trusting your data to NTFS in the first place I'm sure you don't mind an increased chance of data loss.

Why does it work fine on Linux then.

But some MP3 players, cameras etc. won't work without it.

Because lincucks is no threat

>NTFS
It's shit and not worth supporting.

A kernel flag as in passing a flag to the kernel during boot, or recompiling the fucking kernel? Because one is an inconvenience, but the other is fully retarded.

>MS does not let them license it
>Why does it work fine on Linux then.

Because his use of the word "licence" is inaccurate. You don't need a licence to reverse engineer and implement NTFS.

The problem is it is an undocumented format and very complicated. Microsoft won't provide internal documentation for it or offer commercial support.

They allow read only because that's much safer than write access. Apple don't want to be responsible for data loss because of a bug.

This. You could however enable native NTFS writing but only if you're not a brainlet.

Does Mac support Ext4?

Funny how macos will read NTFS but wont write to it. Just format the ext4 the best format and move on

But literally the lincuck free NTFS fs driver works on macOS too

How can Microsoft justify not supporting properly anything besides FAT/exFAT and NTFS?

how can you justify buying crapple in the current year?

Applel and Microshit are want to be exclusive and protect their OSes. Not that hard, if they have support for other, what's the point of purchasing the other stuff? Why expose audience to something else when you can stuff them with your only shit?

Not OP, but all the computers at my school are apple. So sometimes I can't avoid it.

They don't need to, mactoddlers will do it for them

For a drive accessed by multiple OS, would it be best to use ext4 and install 3rd-party drivers for Windows?

Windows supports ext4. Everythinf supports ext4 because it is based

Yes and mac will allow you to easily format a drive to ext4 in the finder

NTFS is proprietary and ext4 is superior in everyway. I hate ntfs due to it random fragmentation of files in disk.

Either way is retarded. Why make it a kernel flag and not just a mount flag?

Because NTFS is garbage, and also proprietary.

It doesn't, you Microshit shill.

CAUSE THIS IS AN APPLE ONLY HOUSEHOLD
WE DONT NEED THAT NTFS THINGY

Attached: shouldhaveabortedhim.jpg (453x604, 45K)

Try it i did it a week ago

>NTFS
Why even? In current year they should be worrying more about ZFS over NTFS

when will ms windows support ext4?

Can someone redpill this newfag on why NTFS is such a bad thing? Especially if you need support/storage for larger files?

MacOS supports ntfs better than linux.
By default, the linux ntfs kernel module only supports reading, just like mac.
But on mac you can also enable write support.
On both OS you can install ntfs-3g

He may be thinking of a kext, it's XNU's version of a kernel module.

because think differently

It is far inferior to other formatting schemes, such as XFS.

How so? And I primarily use Windows (nobody shoot me) and slowly getting into the world of Linux...which is unfortunately limited to a fews VMs just to learn how different distros look and work.
Just curious what's better than can be used with windows or across platforms

Linux also has it as a kernel option. It's to outright prevent RW mounting of NTFS under all conditions to prevent possible corruptions. Enabling NTFS write access in the kernel allows RW and RO mounting.

Vendor lock in. Same reason Microsoft doesn't support any reliable filesystems like UFS or EXT4 or XFS or a decent implementation of XFS

It isn't. It's just that freetards hate it, because it's the Windows' preferred filesystem, making it Bad(TM). This is why they can never actually tell you why it's bad, beyond vague complaints about fragmentation, and listing "bugs" that are actually for compatibility with Win32, and not limitations of the filesystem at all. This is how ignorant they are, as exemplified by - which boils down to "I don't know, but I'll knock it anyway".

>2019
>NTFS

thought school vacation was over

It can read New Technology File System, that's ought to be enough for such a bad FS

>supporting NTFS
Not sure there's much point. fat and exfat have become the standard for external media for some reason. I guess that's because it's simple.

Nothing really uses NTFS except for Windows computers.

>It's just that freetards hate it
Don't think that's the case. Linux has had NTFS support for quite some time. Nobody uses it beyond reading Windows drives. It really isn't a filesystem that stands up to EXT4 or XFS in terms of performance and data integrity and it's a joke compared to ZFS for large amounts of drives. Please, do share, enlighten us on *any* use-case where NTFS would be your first and logical choice if you could choose the filesystem to use freely.

>using ntfs anywhere but on fixed disks in a windows environment
>using windows

>Not sure there's much point. fat and exfat have become the standard for external media for some reason. I guess that's because it's simple.
No, it's because it's free. Unlike NTFS.