Except that the security in NTFS can be bypassed by placing to the drive in a Win98 machine and installing a copy of NTFS for 98 (it's a commercial NTFS driver for 98). You can then read any directory or file, whatever its permissions.
The same true for all main Linux/Unix filesystems. E.g. there are ext2 drivers for Windows.
However if you use the built in encryption feature of NTFS then you can't read the files. You can't do the same with the main Linux/Unix filesystems because none of them supports encryption.
Many Linux users don't even register at Linux Counter.
I never did, until just now. If anything, the Linux Counter graph would be an underestimate because the only people it shows are those who both a)knew about it, and b)cared enough to register.
The 14 millions Linux users on the graph (or 18 millions on the home page) is an estimate. The number of registered users are under 120 thousands as of today.
What main distro ships out of the box transparent per file, directory or volume level encryption? None.
What main distro ships with many out of the box remotely-exploitable holes? Or increadibly broken email clients? A strong sys admin is need for your Windows boxes just as much, if not more so, than UNIX-ish boxes. Of the three servers running in my office the Windows box needs to be rebooted about once a month; I use the uptime of the OpenBSD boxes to measure when the last power outage was.
The topic is about NTFS and filesystems. I'm afraid your comment is off-topic.
Let's try again, what main distro ships out of the box transparent per file, directory or volume level encryption? Or transparent per file, directory or volume level compression?
Does it hurt saying none and start working on it or do something other useful instead of flaming and trolling?
--Where did you get those numbers for XP? Oh that's right, you pulled them out of your ass.
No, I work in the computing industry so I follow the happenings even unvoluntarily. There are a bunch of sources of information, Microsoft press
announced 67 million XP copies sold on 17 October 2002, after one year XP was released. I remember announcements on 90 millions some months ago, so today they should be around 100 million. These are the legal copies. BSA and other sources say 2-4 more times used with the illegal copies.
Google Zeitgeist says 31% XP, 21% W2K, 4% NT, 3% Mac, 1% Linux.
There are a bunch of other sources like IDC, market research companies, your or your friends' company if you/they're working for a huge company especially doing/selling cross-platform products/services.
I encourage you do your own research and share with us.
--You SERIOUSLY underestimate the number of Linux users out there. And you have nothing to back up your claims.
Linux Counter graph shows 14 million. Based on several other source of information, I seriously doubt it's not an overestimate.
IDC says Linux may surpass Mac OS in 2005. Today there are less than 30 million Mac user and the Mac share is at least 3 times bigger than the Linux one.
Is my 10- million Linux user a SERIOUS underestimate as you claim? I doubt, you didn't write any smart or valuable information.
Go away, troll.
Why does it hurt so much? What does it matter? There was time when Linux was used only by Linus. The trends are matter. And your arrogant behavior doesn't help to improve Linux share and paints a pretty black picture on you and the Linux community.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Hey, what's the point of journaling if you are just going to run chkdsk/fsck everytime, anyhow?
First good point. And apparently the only one.
Well, if you are forced to defrag it all the time, that *really* ruins your performance, which defeats the point.
I'm not forced because I don't use NTFS:P But I can't see what's the big deal running it once a day in the background automatically. People do it and they are happy with it. And others whining.
Now you are mixing up the filesystem and the operating system... The filesystem doesn't do the encryption, the software on top of the filesystem does.
Saying OSes other than Windows don't typically have reasonably transparent file encryption has nothing to do with the filesystem itself.
I never told this. Check out again what I wrote.
Besides, I would never talk about a distro "out of the box". It's a horrible baseline to use. There are many things that distros don't do "out of the box" that are very easy for an admin to do.
Majority of the computer users aren't admins.
I gave much more detailed info in my reply to his vague assertions, so how does that make you think he knows what he's talking about, and I don't? The only obvious answer is that you promote NTFS yourself, and since he agrees with your opinions, that *must* mean he is knowledgable...
If I were to promote a filesystem then that wouldn't be NTFS. But NTFS is better, much more feature rich then most of the Unix ones, you like it or or not (personally I don't care much). But let's see what sethadam1 wrote: "NTFS is a modern, mature, stable, fully journalled file system".
Modern: definitely, at least compared to most Unix filesystems. It support most or all of their features *plus* compression, encryption, all power of 2 block sizes between 512 and 64 KB, nanosec timestamps, undelete on filesystem level, file forks, ACL's, extended attributes, UTF-8, indexing, etc.
Mature: one should look through its evolution how much it improved over the last 10 years
Stable: how would it work otherwise for several hundred million users?
Fully journalled: that's not true. Only metadata is journaled.
unlike reiser, ext3, and UFS2, it's proven and widely deployed...
--Oh, be quiet. I bet there are more systems out there running reiserfs and ext3 than ntfs. I can say for a fact that you are spreading FUD
Let's see, over 30% of OS's are XP. Most with NTFS. Forget now for W2k and older NT's that have also NTFS as default. That's about 200-300 million computers using minimum one NTFS.
There are couple of millions Linux user, lets say max 10 million that's an overestimate based on most reasonable surveys. They are using different filesystems (ext2, ext3, jfs, reiserfs, xfs).
What number is bigger 200+ million or 10- million?
So after all who is spreading FUD? Please try to get your facts right and not to make Linux users look completely ignorants.
NTFS is slow... very slow when compared to other "modern" filesystems. It is a journaled fs, yet a chkdsk takes quite a long time.
You mix apple with orange, and journaling with fsck. A full fsck is slow on all filesystem. Moreover chkdsk (full fsck) was significantly improved on XP and Win2003.
The slowness of NTFS is because of the inefficient Windows implementation of the NTFS *driver*. Just look at how it allocates clusters if there are multiply write sessions. Insane. Regularly running the built-in defrag helps a lot.
Yes I did, but just about every filesystem on the planet is decent enough that encryption can be layered on-top of it without any problem.
Yes, can or could. But NTFS *does* this transparently. What main distro ships out of the box transparent per file, directory or volume level encryption? None.
The wording of most of your post sounds like it was pulled directly from a press release ("NTFS is a modern, mature, stable, fully journalled file system. It's got POSIX compliance, and it's got room built in for improvement."), and you say I'm biased? Give me a break. It sounds like you are in support of NTFS just BECAUSE it is a Microsoft product.
As I see sethadam knows what he's talking about. But you lack the same knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you check the facts? gzip has a quite average compression, or less so. RAR is one of the best and it's even much more efficient than bzip.
However if you use the built in encryption feature of NTFS then you can't read the files. You can't do the same with the main Linux/Unix filesystems because none of them supports encryption.
Let's try again, what main distro ships out of the box transparent per file, directory or volume level encryption? Or transparent per file, directory or volume level compression?
Does it hurt saying none and start working on it or do something other useful instead of flaming and trolling?
Google Zeitgeist says 31% XP, 21% W2K, 4% NT, 3% Mac, 1% Linux. There are a bunch of other sources like IDC, market research companies, your or your friends' company if you/they're working for a huge company especially doing/selling cross-platform products/services.
I encourage you do your own research and share with us.
Linux Counter graph shows 14 million. Based on several other source of information, I seriously doubt it's not an overestimate.IDC says Linux may surpass Mac OS in 2005. Today there are less than 30 million Mac user and the Mac share is at least 3 times bigger than the Linux one.
Is my 10- million Linux user a SERIOUS underestimate as you claim? I doubt, you didn't write any smart or valuable information.
Why does it hurt so much? What does it matter? There was time when Linux was used only by Linus. The trends are matter. And your arrogant behavior doesn't help to improve Linux share and paints a pretty black picture on you and the Linux community. Are you?Modern: definitely, at least compared to most Unix filesystems. It support most or all of their features *plus* compression, encryption, all power of 2 block sizes between 512 and 64 KB, nanosec timestamps, undelete on filesystem level, file forks, ACL's, extended attributes, UTF-8, indexing, etc.
Mature: one should look through its evolution how much it improved over the last 10 years
Stable: how would it work otherwise for several hundred million users?
Fully journalled: that's not true. Only metadata is journaled.
Let's see, over 30% of OS's are XP. Most with NTFS. Forget now for W2k and older NT's that have also NTFS as default. That's about 200-300 million computers using minimum one NTFS.
There are couple of millions Linux user, lets say max 10 million that's an overestimate based on most reasonable surveys. They are using different filesystems (ext2, ext3, jfs, reiserfs, xfs).
What number is bigger 200+ million or 10- million? So after all who is spreading FUD? Please try to get your facts right and not to make Linux users look completely ignorants.
The slowness of NTFS is because of the inefficient Windows implementation of the NTFS *driver*. Just look at how it allocates clusters if there are multiply write sessions. Insane. Regularly running the built-in defrag helps a lot.
Yes, can or could. But NTFS *does* this transparently. What main distro ships out of the box transparent per file, directory or volume level encryption? None.As I see sethadam knows what he's talking about. But you lack the same knowledge.