On Sun, 05 May 2024 15:22:47 -0700 (Seattle), "Relf"
<Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote in <Jeff-Relf.Me@May.5--3.22pm.Seattle.2024>:

> You (rBowman) replied ( to me ):
>> > Why haven't any of you propeller heads tried an NTFS distro ?
>>
>> https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/13/how_ntfs_finally_made_it/
>
> No one has tried it, apparently.

Native NTFS support in the kernel is relatively new.

Meanwhile, the ext{2,3,4} filesystems just got better and better.
ext4 is solid and proper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4

It's journaling, but if you want faster performance, you
can mount with an option that only journals metadata.

NTFS is interesting, though, because it has shadow copy. (If
you use Netapp filers, it seems to be similar to the .snapshot
directory. I've never used NTFS shadow copy, maybe someone
will speak up about it.)

Reading up on NTFS on Wikipedia, it doesn't look like there's
much to recommend it over more open file systems -- and one
might argue it's not a great idea to entrust your files
to a filesystem whose de facto reference implementation
was proprietary for so long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS

It is a bit hypocritical for me to raise that point, though,
because I've been a fan of Netapp filers (with .snapshot
support) for decades. But, that's an appliance.

Finally, I just read about "Transactional NTFS", and it sounds
like a nice feature to have...if you can get it.

[ Newsgroup comp.os.linux.misc added, as this is a general
linux question, and not advocacy. ]

--
-v

On Sun, 05 May 2024 16:26:14 -0700 (Seattle), "Relf"
<Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote in <Jeff-Relf.Me@May.5--4.26pm.Seattle.2024>:

> You (Crump) replied ( to me ):
>> > > > Why haven't any of you propeller heads tried an NTFS distro ?
>>
>> https://www.paragon-software.com/us/home/ntfs-linux-professional/#
>
> That's proprietary software that lets you mount an NTFS drive.
>
> You can't name an NTFS distro.

See the post I just made that expands on the topic.

My personal take: there doesn't seem to be any demand
for an NTFS distro. If it were to gain value in the
marketplace of ideas, someone will do it.

Meanwhile, do you use WSL2?

--
-v

DistroMan:
> I've never used NTFS shadow copy, maybe someone will speak up about it.)

I use shadow copy almost every day, I'm using it right now.
With ShadowSpawn, RoboCopy backs up the specified files,
no matter if they're open or not.

ShadowSpawn C:\__ R: RoboCopy R: A:\__ /B /XF Robo.TXT /XD Tmp Del *IE-Tmp *TileDataLayer *Packages *Recent /NDL /mir /J /NJH /NJS /NP /UNILOG:C:\__\Robo.TXT

DistroMan asked me: do you use WSL2 ?

No.

On Sun, 05 May 2024 17:58:31 -0700 (Seattle), Relf wrote:

> I use shadow copy almost every day, I'm using it right now.
> With ShadowSpawn, RoboCopy backs up the specified files,
> no matter if they're open or not.

Sometimes, the easiest way to copy a lot of Windows files is with Linux
<https://www.theregister.com/2010/09/24/sysadmin_file_tools/>.

On 2024-05-06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2024 17:58:31 -0700 (Seattle), Relf wrote:
>
>> I use shadow copy almost every day, I'm using it right now.
>> With ShadowSpawn, RoboCopy backs up the specified files,
>> no matter if they're open or not.
>
> Sometimes, the easiest way to copy a lot of Windows files is with Linux
><https://www.theregister.com/2010/09/24/sysadmin_file_tools/>.

I still get that "too good to be true" feeling when I open a VPN from
my Linux laptop to the company's Windows servers and play with their
NTFS drives using Linux tools (including zipping and unzipping files).

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | The Internet is like a big city:
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | it has plenty of bright lights and
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | excitement, but also dark alleys
/ \ if you read it the right way. | down which the unwary get mugged.

vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:

[...]

> "Try not to think about an elephant."
>
> So...why are you in a Linux advocacy group,
> except to follow me around, Ms. Stalker?

You know what the cure is. [fu2: bit-bucket]

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon just is.

On 2024-05-05, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 May 2024 15:21:31 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>
>> If I remember right, my Fedora 39 installation used btrfs by default. It
>> seems to be working fine. (Let me double check that.) ...
>>
>> Yes, the main partition is btrfs. I'm not smart enough to know the
>> difference.
>>
>
> My Fedora 40 is also btfrs for the main but /boot is ext4. The Ubuntu box
> came with Windows 11 so it has /boot/efi which is vfat. The Fedora box is
> the old Dell before UEFI was a thing.
> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/6/
> html/installation_guide/s2-diskpartrecommend-x86
>
> "The /boot and / (root) partition in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.9 can only
> use the ext2, ext3, and ext4 (recommended) file systems. You cannot use
> any other file system for this partition, such as Btrfs, XFS, or VFAT. "

Same with version 39 of Fedora. So SuSE wants to use brtfs for everything?

I think Debian, Ubuntu and Linux Mint all still default to ext4. Seems to
work fine for me.

> Interesting. I did the OpenSUSE install as a dual boot with Windows 7. The
> symptom was it got as far as grub and went into outer space. I didn't do a
> lot of research at the time, just changed to ext4. Ironically SUSE was
> one of the early adopters of reiserfs.
>
> File systems are another one of those things I don't worry about as long
> as they work. It's been a while since I've done anything other than point
> the installer at the drive and let it do its own thing.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-05-07 2:29 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-05-05, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 May 2024 15:21:31 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If I remember right, my Fedora 39 installation used btrfs by default. It
>>> seems to be working fine. (Let me double check that.) ...
>>>
>>> Yes, the main partition is btrfs. I'm not smart enough to know the
>>> difference.
>>>
>>
>> My Fedora 40 is also btfrs for the main but /boot is ext4. The Ubuntu box
>> came with Windows 11 so it has /boot/efi which is vfat. The Fedora box is
>> the old Dell before UEFI was a thing.
>> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/6/
>> html/installation_guide/s2-diskpartrecommend-x86
>>
>> "The /boot and / (root) partition in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.9 can only
>> use the ext2, ext3, and ext4 (recommended) file systems. You cannot use
>> any other file system for this partition, such as Btrfs, XFS, or VFAT. "
>
> Same with version 39 of Fedora. So SuSE wants to use brtfs for everything?
>
> I think Debian, Ubuntu and Linux Mint all still default to ext4. Seems to
> work fine for me.

btrfs seems to be superior to everything else but XFS, at least
theoretically. I guess that much like Communism, it doesn't work out too
well in practise.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>
>> So...why are you in a Linux advocacy group,
>> except to follow me around, Ms. Stalker?
>
>You know what the cure is. [fu2: bit-bucket]

You're just a phobe to me.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Joel wrote:
> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>
>>> So...why are you in a Linux advocacy group,
>>> except to follow me around, Ms. Stalker?
>>
>> You know what the cure is. [fu2: bit-bucket]
>
>
> You're just a phobe to me.
>
>
you're just a pillow biting queer

% <percent@yohooo.not> wrote:
>Joel wrote:
>> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So...why are you in a Linux advocacy group,
>>>> except to follow me around, Ms. Stalker?
>>>
>>> You know what the cure is. [fu2: bit-bucket]
>>
>> You're just a phobe to me.
>>
>you're just a pillow biting queer

I dare you to prove that by fighting me, pussyboy. But know that I'm
gonna fuck you up bad, if you try, so think about it real hard.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Joel wrote:
> % <percent@yohooo.not> wrote:
>> Joel wrote:
>>> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>>>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So...why are you in a Linux advocacy group,
>>>>> except to follow me around, Ms. Stalker?
>>>>
>>>> You know what the cure is. [fu2: bit-bucket]
>>>
>>> You're just a phobe to me.
>>>
>> you're just a pillow biting queer
>
>
> I dare you to prove that by fighting me, pussyboy. But know that I'm
> gonna fuck you up bad, if you try, so think about it real hard.
>
>
don't hit me with your purse, joleen

https://postimg.cc/N5ByWDtX

% <percent@yohooo.not> wrote:

>>>> You're just a phobe to me.
>>>>
>>> you're just a pillow biting queer
>>
>> I dare you to prove that by fighting me, pussyboy. But know that I'm
>> gonna fuck you up bad, if you try, so think about it real hard.
>>
>don't hit me with your purse, joleen

Translation: you know you'd get fucked up. You will stick to your
pathetic, anonymous Internet baiting, because that's all you can do,
faggot.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

% wrote:
> Joel wrote:
>> % <percent@yohooo.not> wrote:
>>> Joel wrote:
>>>> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>>>>> vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So...why are you in a Linux advocacy group,
>>>>>> except to follow me around, Ms. Stalker?
>>>>>
>>>>> You know what the cure is.     [fu2: bit-bucket]
>>>>
>>>> You're just a phobe to me.
>>>>
>>> you're just a pillow biting queer
>>
>>
>> I dare you to prove that by fighting me, pussyboy.  But know that I'm
>> gonna fuck you up bad, if you try, so think about it real hard.
>>
> >
> don't hit me with your purse, joleen
>
> https://postimg.cc/N5ByWDtX

theCubeNet - www.thecubenet.com

Le 05-05-2024, Relf <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> a écrit :
> Why haven't any of you propeller heads tried an NTFS distro ?

What for? I don't see the point. If you want Linux with NTFS, you just
install it and format your partition with NTFS. But a distro with NTFS as
default is simply stupid. First the distro makers are responsible for
the issues with the default choices they do. And NTFS doesn't work that
well with Linux, so for a start a lot of bad things can happen. And
There are a lot of good file systems for Linux, so there is no need for
NTFS. So the distro based on NTFS would be prone of issues for no
advantage. And if everything runs smoothly, Microsoft could change NTFS
at anytime and other issues would happen. So it's normal to have no
NFTS distro.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

You (Carpentier) replied ( to me ):
> > Why haven't any of you propeller heads tried an NTFS distro ?
>
> it's normal to have no NFTS distro.

I see, you're all too "normal" for that.

On Fri, 10 May 2024 16:32:09 -0700, Relf wrote:

> You (Carpentier) replied ( to me ):
>> > Why haven't any of you propeller heads tried an NTFS distro ?
>>
>> it's normal to have no NFTS distro.
>
> I see, you're all too "normal" for that.

I honestly can't see any advantage to having a distribution running atop
NTFS either. You use Linux to get away from proprietary software, not to
use more of it. NTFS is also arguably worse than ext4, especially since
the latter resists fragmentation.

Cue DFS with some benchmarks for us.

AndreM wrote:
> NTFS is also arguably worse than ext4,
> especially since the latter resists fragmentation.

SSD drives, like mine, should NOT be defragmented.

On Fri, 10 May 2024 19:55:36 -0700, Relf wrote:

> AndreM wrote:
>> NTFS is also arguably worse than ext4,
>> especially since the latter resists fragmentation.
>
> SSD drives, like mine, should NOT be defragmented.

I'm aware. ext4 still resists fragmentation on hard disks though, doesn't
it?

AndreM:
> > > NTFS is also arguably worse than ext4,
> > > especially since the latter resists fragmentation.
> >
> > SSD drives, like mine, should NOT be defragmented.
>
> I'm aware. ext4 still resists fragmentation on hard disks though,

No hard disks here; not now, not ever.

How is ext4 better than NTFS ?

On Sat, 11 May 2024 04:53:26 -0700, Relf wrote:

> AndreM:
>> > > NTFS is also arguably worse than ext4,
>> > > especially since the latter resists fragmentation.
>> >
>> > SSD drives, like mine, should NOT be defragmented.
>>
>> I'm aware. ext4 still resists fragmentation on hard disks though,
>
> No hard disks here; not now, not ever.
>
> How is ext4 better than NTFS ?

<https://askubuntu.com/questions/689702/comparing-ntfs-and-ext4>