Why do people switch to Linux 13476
On Sunday 30 October 2005 04:42, T.G. Reaper stood up and spoke the following words to the mbuttes incomp.os.linux.advocacy...:
Yes, NTFS is far better than any GNU-Linux filesystem at degrading itself over time due to fragmentation issues...
Didn't think so...
Just because Dave Cutler designed NT doesn't mean that he made it into a VMS clone. VMS and NT are two quite different systems, even if their kernels have a number of features in common.
Fancy filesystem features that aren't used don't do anyone much good. Few Windows users seem to know how to set permissions on a file, and only a minority of Windows installs make use of...
NTFS had them, yes. However, Windows can natively run off of a FAT16 orvfatfilesystem, which doesn't offer any of those functionalities. The bottom line there is that Windows does not *require* ACL functionality to be present and therefore does not rely on them. It only uses them *if* they are present.
To my knowledge,XFShas always had ACL's. Now you can argue thatXFSis not a native GNU-Linux filesystem, but this is because it's originally proprietary - and in a more extended version still is.
I thinkext3also natively supported ACL's from the start, but then you can argue thatext3was only written afterwards as an improved version ofext2,which did not have ACL's.
filesystem - to implement security. The Linux kernel actually *needs* a filesystem which supports ownerships and permission masks. In other words, security is a core feature of the kernel.
No, it's not the same. Not by a long shot.
-- With kind regards,
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:32:40 +0100, Peter Kshlmann In the way they are used on most Linux boxes, yes. Those file systems have ACL support "available," but in practical terms almost nobody uses...
*Aragorn* (Registered GNU-Linux user #223157)
Why do people switch to Linux 13477
Linux Advocacy from Newsgroups