Happy 30th Birthday “New Technology” File System! Thanks for 30 years of demonstrating Linux superiority with a gap that widens with every new kernel release 👍

        • Confetti Camouflage
          link
          fedilink
          111 year ago

          Nothing inherently wrong with NTFS itself as a filesystem besides being proprietary, and Microsoft supplies absolutely no support for using it in Linux. All the work done to get it running in Linux has been from the ground up and it shows. Many times I’ve had a hiccup on my external drives and they completely lock up until they’re repaired on a windows machine. Unfortunately NTFS is one of the only journaled file system that works on both Windows, Apple, and Linux.

          There has also been a lot of advances for filesystems like checksumming so you know when you get bitrot. Or copy-on-write which can take snapshots of a file and then further changes are stored as the difference. You can then rollback to any snapshot you’ve taken.

        • @Secret300@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          101 year ago

          Very slow, still needs defragmented, proprietary, (I know a lot of people don’t care about that but also a lot feel that proprietary software is malware) and is so unbelievably slow on hard drives. I know I said slow twice but god damn on a hard drive it’s rough. I know just get an SSD but I have a 2TB hard drive I keep my games on. It used to be on NTFS so I could dual-boot and not download a game twice but once I left windows I put ext4 on it and it helps a bit.

          • Montagge
            link
            fedilink
            121 year ago

            I have a 2TB HDD that was ntfs and now ext4 as well. I can’t say I’ve noticed a difference, but I didn’t do any benchmarking either.

            I wouldn’t consider ntfs as malware like I would something like anticheat software. As far as I know ntfs doesn’t intentionally or negligently harm, open a system to harm, or perform tasks that have nothing to do with the designed function.

            Drefragging sucks I guess, but it had to be run so infrequently. I can certainly understand why someone would want to move onto something that removed the need for it.

          • @joel_feila@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            51 year ago

            When I swapped from l windows to linux my at the 12+ year old pc went from needing like 15 minutes from boot to load the web browser. Linux mint cut that down to 1 minute. yes i cleaned my disk and defrag it regularly. Just less bloat and better fs

            • nakal
              link
              fedilink
              6
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’ll try. Short: It’s not as powerful as ZFS.

              Examples:

              • no low cost snapshots (don’t harm performance)
              • no checksums, no self-healing
              • 256 TB limit
              • magical reserved $ and OneDrive filenames
              • magical 8.3 mapping
              • broken standard API calls (CreateFileW instead of fopen)
              • falsem
                link
                fedilink
                81 year ago

                Another reason ZFS is better is it gives you something to do with all your spare RAM.

              • Sikeen
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                also ntfs doesn’t support many common symbols. so you can’t use them

              • neo (he/him)
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                NTFS is genuinely inferior in many respects, especially on hard drives, Mister Blue Tribe.

                • @Dax87@forum.stellarcastle.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  3
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, NTFS lacks features that surely one of the many Linux filesystems have. But it also has features others do not. There is no one-siize-fits-all filesystem.

                  • Ext4 is generally faster than NTFS, but cannot handle as large of files
                  • ZFS has a multitude of features that NTFS does not, like zraid, dedup, etc., but usually at the cost of RAM.
                  • BTRFS is included in the Linux kernel and also has many features, like being able to conveniently switch hard drive raid-like configurations on the fly with rebalance, but doesn’t support fs-level encryption
                  • NTFS lacks in many features the others do not, and is a “non-standard” filesystem. However, it’s one of the few with better cross-platform support, more advanced access control, pre-emptive journaling, reparse points, etc.

                  It’s quite obvious that my calling out tribalism has felt to you an attack.

                  We get enough of this “us vs them” mentality in literally every topic and medium. I’d just like a little more nuance and genuine discourse. So I apologize if I’ve offended you.

                  • neo (he/him)
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    -11 year ago

                    Ext4 is generally faster than NTFS, but cannot handle as large of files

                    Going to be honest with you, this has not been my experience.

                    And you can imagine whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it reality.