no CoW

Then what is better than NTFS?

bcachefs

The MFT is pretty god tier though, makes tools like Everything (fuzzy file searcher) insanely fast.

Linux + *BSD + Microsoft + Apple getting together and agreeing on a filesystem that
>doesn't have file permissions
>optionally allows directory based (like inheritance) but specified in mount parameters
>supports all characters and case sensitivity (specified at mount parameters with mitigation option)
>no limits on file size or sub-directory depth or file name length
>is fast but not extremely modern or untested therefore extremely versatile
>source in public domain
>works on all OS

Still the best 2019

>Windows already ships with ReFS that
>can't be used on a boot disk
>removed compression
>removed quota support

And best of all

>Windows 10 1709 build removed ReFS support from Home and Professional Edition and relegated it to Enterprise only

FAT64 when?

> instantly eats 12% of your disk

> instantly eats 12% of your disk

>69820977
what a garbage post

> it's called TempleOS nigga

>Then what is better than NTFS?
HAMMER2

Yep. Haven't checked it in a while but refs under server 2016 was not ready for prime time. Still use ntfs. Also void tools everything is amazing

HPFS

isn't a lack of file permissions a security risk?

If it ain't fixed, don't broke it.

No because you have to have write permissions on your files and it's not easy to make file permissions consistent across different OS and computers
Windows will continue using NTFS for C:\, Linux will continue to use ext4 for /, Apple will continue to use AFS but for external volumes and shared disks on the same computer you don't need file permissions

>MFW i store all my long term media on NTFS through NTFS-3g
Feels good man

I don't think user was baiting, he is genuinely retarded.

>Apple will continue to use AFS
I like it how Apple went and made a worse filesystem to fix their worse than NTFS filesystem.

> Not just using ext4 or even ZFS

How do I read and write to ext4 from Windows?

It's fundamentally broke.

>rather than magic byte sequences
Fucking cancer, are you seriously suggesting reading every file to determine its type? Ever had a folder with over 1000 files?

On 2019 they recommend it for dedicated database and hyper-v disks but not "general use".

Honestly as good as ZFS is with the current infighting around its place in the Linux kernel I have low hopes it it being easily accessible in a few years.

I need a sad pepe for this post.

Shit like this makes me question using anything new ever.

Yes
Why should I name my files?
The file is jpg whether it's name foo.jpg, foo.jpeg, foo.JPEG, foo, foo.whatever
File extensions as file type are fucking stupid
Xfce handles just fine mimetype autodetection (through xdg-mime I think) and there is always file on terminal which I use in Windows too
There is absolutely no fucking excuse in 2019 where SSD are common to still rely on file extension for mimetype detection
Fucking Windows

you in 32 years?

I would use ReFS if it is bootable.

Oh there absolutely is a reason, and it's the speed of search. SSD won't save you here.

>speed of search
Wrong
Speed of search isn't an issue when you are in a terminal because you can use find
$ find . -iname '*.jpg' -or -iname '*.jpeg'

or use find with -exec where you execute a script using file or xdg-mime that prints the filename when it matches the provided mimetype
It's up to you

It's not an issue either when you are using a GUI file manager because you only view a handful of files and as long as the file manager uses a good MVC architecture (often provided by the toolkit) you only have to get the mimetype by reading a handful of files at a time

There is no reason to rely on file extension for mimetype resolution like an illiterate uncivilized savage

>because you only view a handful of files
Because YOU only view a handful of files. Opening 100k files simply to check out what their type is not viable.

He means that the file manager only has to do mimetype resolution for files that are visible within the current window. Even if a directory has 100K files, resolve the visible files, then the directory at a limited rate.

What's handy too, is you don't have to read in whole files, just look for specific bytes in certain places and match against a database. Much less disk usage than Windows Explorer.

>>Windows 10 1709 build removed ReFS support from Home and Professional Edition and relegated it to Enterprise only
Wait, so if someone had ReFS partitions before, they'd suddenly become unreadable post-update? That's hilarious.

Attached: 1547700025917.jpg (460x306, 18K)

APFS > ZHS > HFS > FAT > NTFS

>APFS
Fuck off

I used NTFS for years on Linux and it worked without any major problems outside of the initial setup. Outside of being proprietary it seems to be about as reliable as ext4 (aka as reliable as it gets). Ext4 is obviously better but even better would be maturing and widespread adoption of btrfs.

Absolute retard

>Windows
>doesn't loose files

>> will vomit if files have '?', '!', ':', '/', and more
>> can't name files NUL, AUX, CON, etc because of stolen UNIX features that are basically aborted fetus on life support in the name of backwards compatibility
Aren't those Windows API problems rather than NTFS problems? Aside from '/' in filenames, that's just plain retarded and unsupported by pretty much any filesystem, along with \x00

not exactly Windows API problems, but rather limitations of the kernel's VFS layer, as OP already said. Allowing '/' is still a stretch but Windows has no use for it and only "reserves" it because of CMD's autistic syntax. Not allowing '\' is obviously understandable.

> as reliable as it gets
There's a reason EXT4 has that reputation. NTFS's journaling is fundamentally broken and disabled by default. Also, the probability of recovering data from EXT4 without removing orphaned inodes or dumping them in a LOST+FOUND directory is generally higher.

Dunno what to tell you, by my own anecdotal evidence NTFS worked fine as well, it's still the FS I've spent the most time using. Ext4 is obviously better and doesn't have to be reverse-engineered to be usable, but outside of those two there's not much widespread alternatives around. ZFS will never be a general-purpose FS thanks to oracle, btrfs still seems less reliable than ext4 but is apparently getting there. So considering the options NTFS really seems passable, especially if you're a wintard. At least it's not HFS+.

And how would you implement sort by type?

Indeed. Dragonfly is the superior system.

Attached: 1549621925147.png (300x300, 151K)

>APFS >
Stopped reading there

>case insensitive cancer
>will vomit if files have '?', '!', ':', '/', and more
>can't name files NUL, AUX, CON, etc because of stolen UNIX features that are basically aborted fetus on life support in the name of backwards compatibility
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS#Internals

>no filesystem snapshots
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Copy

>no data deduplication
techrepublic.com/blog/the-enterprise-cloud/windows-server-8-data-deduplication-what-you-need-to-know/

I thought Windows "just works"? Why doesn't it support more filesystems? On GNU I can just install a few packages and get NTFS, HFS, APFS, support.

this.
If Linux can mount WBFS ffs then Windows can at least support EXT4

i think it actually can, you just need to write drivers for them
i have not actually looked into what that takes but based on what little of the windows api i have interacted with it must be hell unimaginable

> imagine writing drivers for a proprietary kernel whose code you can't even see.
Honestly, driving blind would be easier

It’s not even the fact that it’s proprietary, it’s that its windows.
It is the definition of bloat.
It makes systemd look good.
It being proprietary is just the sprinkles on the shit sundae.

I’ve heard that quite a lot of rather important parts of the windows api are completely undocumented.

Attached: IMG_7966.jpg (228x216, 12K)

Attached: 1456689023066.gif (160x120, 1.23M)

imagine being such a fucking retard that you've never run chkdsk and seen NTFS lose files. I bet you're part of the special breed that types color 0a into command prompt, aren't you?

> undocumented
Can confirm. Also, M$ constantly changing their TechNet links is complete cancer. 90% of the links you find on StackOverflow to actual documentation as well as half the links in their own sites are dead.

I don't care what filesystem it is as long as I'm using Windows. The filesystem is transparent to me.

Attached: DzZeJ5_V4AADaPP.jpg (645x729, 34K)

case sensitivity is annoying. i dont want multiple files with the same name but one uppercase letter and its easier to type the filename or path too when theres no need to think about case sensitivity

zfs is bloat

probably with this thing github.com/mregmi/ext2read

that's all bloat

thats really slow if it has to read every file in a big directory.

>Speed of search isn't an issue when you can use an extremely obtuse and slightly incompatible scripting language that uses argv as the script source.

Nigguh wut?

>There is absolutely no fucking excuse in 2019 where SSD are common to still rely on file extension for mimetype detection
oh wow, what an absolute fucking imbecile you are.

>let's wait ten years for another meme fs

this must be why all the linux image viewers that support browsing are so slow. you open a folder with over 1000 pictures and it has to go through all of them before you can browse them. it worked much better on windows.

Linux users just got BTFO.

>Support Linux filesystems
>Can't fuck with vendors for exfat patent licenses and documentation

M$ cares too much about profiteering, like Apple, to ever enable customers in that way.

checked this again now and apparently theres one viewer now that does it properly. the gnome image viewer called eye of gnome. all the others will go though all files that are in the folder before you even see the picture that you opened.

>if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Yeah tell that to innovators and industry leaders.
That's really dumb to say.

That and other ext2 programs can only partially read ext4 partitions. They see metadata field on a directory and decides it's a file and won't let you navigate to that directory. Only thing that works is Paragon, but it is write-enabled and can and has fucked up users' ext4 partitions (Paragon's HFS+ for Windows offering is notorious for crashing out of nowhere making Mac partitions unbootable).

That's not how it works
If you have ReFS drives they work just fine on Home or Pro you just can't create them anymore

data loss is only a problem in btrfs is you use certain raid configurations. the system i'm using to write this has been running btrfs on both home and root since 2013 and i've never had any data loss.

>innovators and industry leaders.
you mean retards, most of them?

Fuck off

Are you retarded?

> case-insensitivity annoying. hurr durr, it just werks
If you can't remember case of your folders you don't deserve a superior operating system or filesystem. Both the terminal and file manager show path suggestions as you type you fucking brainlet.

Attached: images.jpg (580x529, 22K)

Attached: 1480474565754.png (854x859, 73K)

Nein

Just setup a NAS so you won't even care about NTFS when using Windows

No. Just means you can't make new ReFS volume

Attached: samefag.jpg (1253x880, 142K)

>will vomit if files have ':'
but that's how alternate data streams works

Attached: eh.gif (250x254, 149K)

why havent you installed REEfs?

New meme installed successfully.

ReFS works best for large file objects, yeah.

It also does alright for SOFS mixed use (Hyper-V + standard file share) but I still tend to keep things NTFS when running Windows.

The RAID56 bugs got fixed a few kernels ago, I believe in 4.12 and 4.16. The only remaining problem with it is the write hole.

>case insensitive cancer
wrong, case insensitivity is done by windows not ntfs itself, it can be enabled
>will vomit if files have '?', '!', ':', '/', and more
>can't name files NUL, AUX, CON, etc because of stolen UNIX features
wrong too, ntfs supports all these. It's possible to create files like that from linux.
NUL, AUX and CON are from CP/M not unix.
>no filesystem snapshots
wrong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Copy
>supports hardlinks but not really
what does that mean. It's fully supported.
Hard links are supported since nt 4.0
Symbolic links were added with vista.
>supports journalist, but not really
what? ntfs has journal from the start.
>multiple programs can't read the same file
wrong
>using a master file containing a variable number of file "attributes", rather than mode bits
this is superior because it's extensible

literally the only point that makes sense is lack of copy on write

It just works, I have been using it since win 2000 and I never had a single problem with it.

> nigger tier file manager and OS only uses extensions to determine file types, rather than magic byte sequences
There is nothing wrong with this and it is objectively the best way to determine a filetype

exFAT nibba

The problem isn't that it's used to quickly decide what's what. The problem is that many Windows programs will refuse to open or save files without the proper extension when you manually point them at the file.