I wish Microsoft adopted and upstreamed changes to OpenZFS instead of duplicating all this effort.
Though then I'm sure they would tell the community to fuck off by trying to take over the entire project and pushing the actually open and compatible version out of favour.
I need the better options. I need to be able to detect corruption. ZFS and btrfs let me do that. It's part of the reason why I couldn't use Windows even if I wanted to.
eh, I was thinking like Google and that open chat protocol.
Though I do dislike some of systemd's architecture decisions as well. Like why tha fuck can I not turn off it's own built in authentication to sudo mechanism -_-
What a click bait title. Article goes on to explain the rational reasons why ReFS wasn't built for mainstream use and doing so might bloat its performance on the very server systems it was designed to be efficient for.
This. NTFS is still the gold standard for stability. ReFS is meant for data ops, and while it's fairly stable, and offers a lot of advantages, it's not perfect and can suffer greatly if used incorrectly. Until the quirks are gone, users are probably better off with NTFS for a lot of reasons.
Right? I’ve gone through ReiserFS, ext3, ext4, XFS, Btrfs, ZFS; hell on macOS I’ve been through HFS+ and AFS. And clunky ol’ Microsoft is still on fucking NTFS.
Apple’s APFS I am not a fan of. I have been using Macs since 2008-ish. In all my HFS+ days, I’ve never lost an entire drive. I rebooted my M2 Mac Mini via command prompt, and my external APFS drive is corrupted. Never had that problem before APFS. And since I’m an idiot, I’ve got to pay DiskDrill to hopefully recover the data when I get a larger drive on hand.
27 Comments
eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca · 44 pts · 191d
I wish Microsoft adopted and upstreamed changes to OpenZFS instead of duplicating all this effort.
Though then I'm sure they would tell the community to fuck off by trying to take over the entire project and pushing the actually open and compatible version out of favour.
glen_malley@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 191d
Problem is Microsoft has zero interest in zfs. Not even as far as answering questions the openzfs windows dev asks them.
daggermoon@piefed.world · 7 pts · 190d
Does Windows support any filesystems that don't suck?
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 189d
NTFS? It’s a standard for a reason. Most of the “better” options out there aren’t ready for mainstream/average user use.
daggermoon@piefed.world · 2 pts · 189d
I need the better options. I need to be able to detect corruption. ZFS and btrfs let me do that. It's part of the reason why I couldn't use Windows even if I wanted to.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 191d
It could be Sco vs Linux all over again
ryannathans@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 191d
Just like systemd is experiencing right?
eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 191d
eh, I was thinking like Google and that open chat protocol.
Though I do dislike some of systemd's architecture decisions as well. Like why tha fuck can I not turn off it's own built in authentication to sudo mechanism -_-
ryannathans@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 191d
I agree but just don't otherwise understand why Microsoft is so obsessed with extending system in the manner they currently are
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works · 37 pts · 191d
What a click bait title. Article goes on to explain the rational reasons why ReFS wasn't built for mainstream use and doing so might bloat its performance on the very server systems it was designed to be efficient for.
KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 25 pts · 191d
May I be the first one here to say.. Fuck Microslop
I remember being excited for this in 2011, it's about 15 years too late.
Brkdncr@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 191d
It’s not ready yet. It’s good for some specific use cases but it’s not anything the typical end user needs.
RedEyeFlightControl@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 191d
This. NTFS is still the gold standard for stability. ReFS is meant for data ops, and while it's fairly stable, and offers a lot of advantages, it's not perfect and can suffer greatly if used incorrectly. Until the quirks are gone, users are probably better off with NTFS for a lot of reasons.
fox2263@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 191d
Yet?? They’ve been making it since the Stone Age. I read about it in my teens
undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch · 8 pts · 191d
Right? I’ve gone through ReiserFS, ext3, ext4, XFS, Btrfs, ZFS; hell on macOS I’ve been through HFS+ and AFS. And clunky ol’ Microsoft is still on fucking NTFS.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 190d
Why change it if it works?
What is so bad about NTFS?
undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch · 3 pts · 190d
Why use NTFS if FAT32 works?
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 189d
Because 4GB file limit?
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 187d
exFAT then
CoriolisSTORM88@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 188d
Apple’s APFS I am not a fan of. I have been using Macs since 2008-ish. In all my HFS+ days, I’ve never lost an entire drive. I rebooted my M2 Mac Mini via command prompt, and my external APFS drive is corrupted. Never had that problem before APFS. And since I’m an idiot, I’ve got to pay DiskDrill to hopefully recover the data when I get a larger drive on hand.
Brkdncr@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 191d
Maybe “it’s not needed yet” is more accurate.
fox2263@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 191d
They’ve edged us a few times. I’m sure it was supposed to come with vista
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 191d
Why would you use either over btrFS?
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 190d
Why would you use BTRFS over ZFS?
the_crotch@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 190d
Why would you use zfs over fat12?
01189998819991197253@infosec.pub · 8 pts · 190d
I was fat since I was 12. Now, I'm fat32.
jobbies@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 190d
Yeah but is it better than WinFS?
Satomune@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 190d
Mwa@thelemmy.club · -2 pts · 191d