NTFS - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org

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 👍

      • neo (he/him)English
        1•1 year ago

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

        • @Dax87@forum.stellarcastle.netEnglish
          3•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)English
            -1•1 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.

            • @Dax87@forum.stellarcastle.netEnglish
              1•1 year ago

              ? Imagine? 16 exabytes for NTFS according to multiple sources, like Wikipedia and Microsoft documents, and 16 terabytes for ext4.

              If you want to refute that then it’s most likely you have just had some unlucky experience, and at best it’s anecdotal.

              Considering your rather disingenuous second sentence, I can see that you are not here to engage in conversation, but to troll. You’re exactly what nobody needs buddy. Cya.

              • neo (he/him)English
                0•1 year ago

                im not the one who came onto a linux community to talk about how microsoft is better

    • nakal
      6•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
        8•1 year ago

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

      • Sikeen
        3•1 year ago

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