What about NTFS? 20 people posted about that in this thread. You don't even mention it, yet claim, 'FAT is really the only viable option at the moment'.
My impression is that MSG got a bad rap and is coming back
I don't know where you live. Here in grocery stores MSG is rampant in a lot of 'Asian' foods and other salty things like chips, yes even fish and salads. MSG doesn't have a bad reputation w/most people. Most people happily eat anything they see in store. Most people are also fat, toxic, and unhealthy. Most people die of cancer (or not yet? its raising rapidly). And so on. Else we wouldn't see these hypes around diets and else those products wouldn't sell at all. But reputation or popularity doesn't say much about quality. I mean, just because most people use Windows... (I use that as the most obvious example here on Slashdot as it seems an appropriate, strong example.)
I have yet to meet one person who stopped using MSG and then later started using it again regularly again. Thats also anecdotal indeed, so you don't care much. Nasch, I just want to make one small point: test yourself. If you are healthy and happy with your lifestyle (including diet, and MSG intake but it involves many aspects) sure, go ahead. If not, you might have to adapt aspects, or might want to do this to prevent the worse. I have tested many food additives, drugs, and foods (on) myself compartmentalizing them learning their effects on body and brain. Afterwards, I cut back certain ingredients. In my youth I've used regularly alcohol, cannabis, nicotine (+ additives), coffee/caffein, MSG, aspartame, and sugar. Now I'm 24, I severely cut loose many of these substances and cut back a few of these substances, and now I feel a lot better. After I tested the effects of MSG out on my brain I definetely figured out it is a drug. It learned me to relate to the term excitotoxicity. Anecdotal, but you can also test and figure out for yourself should you feel the need. Thats what I want, not convince others to brainlessly change lifestyle cashing out to stupid diets while not learning.
Right. I can go w/you a long way on that path although I don't believe in holy paths. Now, I do wonder, did you read the first studies concerning MSG and aspartame? The ones based on which MSG and aspartame did NOT get approved by the FDA? Did you actually research what people who worked at the FDA at that time have to say?
Show me a double-blind randomized controlled study with the same findings and I'll be interested.
Pathetic, as those studies on MSG and Aspartame were done on rats in the 70s and 80s before Rumsfeld got his nose into this. Besides, you don't need to see some double-blind randomized controlled study. You only have to use your brains. For example, do you really think using MDMA (which effects are similar to excitotoxicity) every week is good for your brains? No, ofcourse not. However, the negative effects of MSG (et al) is less dangerous if you drink enough water.
I will. It's for the same reason Scholastic changed the title for the first Harry Potter from "The Philosopher's Stone" to "The Sorcerer's Stone" - Americans are just too dumb. We'd probably get confused and think it was an Indiana Jones sequel.
Philosopher's stone has various meanings. Besides these, it also is a name for a species of magic mushrooms called Psilocybe Tampanensis (aka truffles which they resemble although that name is too generic). Yes, this refers to Tampa, where this species was first discovered and cultivated.
People can believe and are in fact poisoned by additives in our food and yet if pressed to detect if a given mean contained additives they wouldn't be able to tell.
If you can't detect MSG in your food by taste and/or brain effect (ie. extreme excitement) then perhaps you already fried your brains too much? I used to not be able to do this (and I often ate it) but once I became aware and cut by my usage, I was able to detect it with ease. Yes, even in restaurants. The same is true for WiFi and GSM in my experience. Stay away from both for a month. Then use them for a few minutes that day. You will notice the effect.
I guess it could be exploited even through the sites you allow, though.
True, but you only add sites you trust which severely lowers the chances.
One can certainly save their passwords. Just don't save them directly in an monolithic application which is highly interactive with the Internet such as a web browser. Use something like a virtual wallet such as KDE's Kwallet (GNOME has a similar feature). This way you assign complex passwords (8 random characters, alpha-numeric, CaSe SeNsiTiVe) e.g. made with the command apg which you all save in your Kwallet (or applications such as LUKS, GELI, GPG, or TrueCrypt can be used for this purpose). Your Kwallet you put a master password on, and this is the only password you have to remember. Various applications can directly access Kwallet (KDE applications such as Konqueror) however should your application not support this you can manually open your Kwallet.
Should you use LUKS, GELI, GPG, or TrueCrypt be sure to close the mount point after you accessed the data. Eventually, one could put this on their PDA using that to store the data instead of directly on a machine connected to the Internet. Although I don't have a PDA, I do like this setup. You securely save your passwords and have them with you whole time, but it does cost time and energy to retrieve the password. Hence, you do have a backup, while your data cannot be read from the desktop(s) themselves, whereas you circumvent becoming too lazy to remember your passwords because accessing the data on PDA costs a minute or so.
Intel can stuff two dual core dies in a package and still not exceed the TDP of AMD's FX series.
1) However, AMD's FX series have a far lower idle W (9 versus 35 on Intel, or something). 2) If you use AMD's X2/EE versions your TDP gets far lower (whereas cost of CPU increases by merely a couple of bucks). If you use X2/EE/SFF you get a TDP of 35W. 3) Price/performance wise, AMD is still a clear winner, hands down.
From the Kwallet handbook (a KDE utility; GNOME has equiv.): The wallet subsytem provides a convenient and secure way to manage all your passwords. I'm not sure if this can be done automatically (integrated in browser) but manually, using a master key/password, it is a good way to store passwords for those with Alzheimer or other memory trouble. One could even use GPG/PGP or TrueCrypt (or LUKS/GELI etcetera) as 'wallet'. As long as you can remember/have the master key its more secure and reliable than (sticky) papers, or a plethora of passwords to remember, or using the same password for various purposes. Just make sure you have this data backed up.
It is bogus, but for a different reason: They do point to one positive for the US, however: article quality. According to one of the researchers, 'the more often an article is cited by other publications, the higher quality it's believed to have. This is a classic argumentum ad populum from a so-called researcher.
Linux has maintained almost complete binary compatibility for applications for ages
Only if you run it on x86-32 family. If you need to run proprietary ports on your Linux system you almost always need to use x86-32 hardware (or AMD64/x86-64 in 32-bit mode) since there isn't a port available for other architectures. This problem also existed in the UNIX era however nowadays due to x86-32 dominance and the open source nature of most 'Linux software' it is minimized. However the existence of AMD64/x86-64, POWER, SPARC and ARM have different demands which open source often -but not always- can fullfill.
Congress does a lot of things that are not authorized in the Constitution..Social Security, Department of Education, and on and on. Many of them are "good" things.
Matter of viewpoint. Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. Some argue the IRS does "good" things...
Good points which should certainly be taken into account but it does not mean disk encryption is utterly useless. Let try to address them.
Changing password, key management are other examples of important features. If you log in from insecure computers (e.g. via SSH), consider to use USB stick + S/Key. GELI has emergency destruction which is also a useful feature. Another point to take into account is metadata on any NAS clients, and the NAS server itself. Ofcourse, you log out of your computer(s) when you're not behind 'em (e.g. sleep); that is computer security 101. In some jurisdictions such as UK you have to give your key whereas in other jurisdictions you don't have to cooperate w/your own prosecution, although you may be lied to and/or be intimidated. When someone kicks in your door, your setup should be made in such way, that even with all machines on, the data cannot be accessed. They'll then power down the NAS and they're doomed. Logging out Samba, OpenSSH, not saving root passwords on clients are all mandatory, but quite logic measures.
Those were approx cheapest prices I could find a few weeks ago. All in 1 it costs 217 wihch is $293, + S&H. Hardware prices in USA are lower than in EU though. Note that 2x 512 MB would have been suffice too however given I'm not going to run pure NAS (ie. some other software on it) and might use ZFS in the future its also a wise choice. Dual-core is also overkill, but again non-pure NAS plus I like the low-power EE/SFF.
GP wrote:
I used to run a minimal linux installation - and later OpenBSD - on an old P100 as a home server, and with decent NICs the bottleneck was always either the theoretical LAN speed or SMB. I now run an OpenBSD Samba server on a 600MHz VIA Samuel 2 Mini-ITX system, and that's only so I could put it in a smaller quieter box. With a couple of clients pulling XviD video real-time off an external USB2 drive, I rarely see the load avg get above 0.3.
This says little about performance, and it matters a lot what you do with your NAS. You do use Samba. Do you even use (software) RAID at all? Disk encryption? On a P1 100 MHz?
My old servers (various Ultra 5 400 MHz in a redundant setup; later w/CARP) had a max read and write speed over Samba of approx 3 MB/sec. Enough for real-time XViD. The machines ran Linux 2.6.x with LUKS. Now, this setup did not even saturate on 100 Mbit, nor did it run any other CPU intensive applications. Process kcrypt was clearly the bugger on this system. If you want to do anything serious with your NAS (e.g. watching or burning a DVD) you're gonna need gbit for sure, and all modern hardware supports this. In hindsight I should not even have used LUKS on all the data, but my new setup is a bigger RAID w/hardly any disk encryption. Still, software XOR requires CPU power. However the advantage of the processor I outlined above, is that it uses 7W idle (less than 10) and a TDP of 35W. You will hardly ever use 35W on this machine if you only use it for software XOR. The bottleneck on your VIAs will be the processor, I am sure of that. Please post some benchmarks?
I'm glad you're satisfied with your VIA, I'm satisfied with my X2/EE/SFF processor + other hardware. Its also relatively low-power, and is able to do a lot more as well. Its the only system I have on 24/7, and the machine even does firewalling on a small home network. Saved me the costs of a Soekris, whereas my electricity bill/initial costs aren't that much higher than VIAs + Soekris. I can even run remote X on this server, running X applications 24/7, without having any other computer (desktop) on. Oh and I don't mean to brag, I just want people to make a conscious decision.:)
Theo, good for you. We don't use FTP servers on NAS, nor do we use such on RAID + full disk encryption setups as FTP defeats their purpose. We only use SMB/NFS on a NAS.
Its funny how the OpenBSD zealots are always ACs. Why don't you go play in your own garden? Now, I give you a point for having implemented PKCS#5 PBKDF2 since OpenBSD 4.0 (quite late but still), but you still miss obvious features such as not limited to: LRW, key management, emergency destroy, changing password without encryption. Besides, the performance of this setup is shit. You can tell by the fact that the write performance is 16 MB/sec, whereas the read performance is merely 25 MB/sec. The fact the author is possitive about such is striking. Note, how it does matter whether this is benchmarked w/bonnie++ on the box, or via say Samba, or some other method. Still, they both should be much higher even with the overhead of full disk encryption.
There is much to say about Jari Ruusu as well. Thanks for pointing our my sources were one-sided.
However, this quote of yours is a lie. Update yourself. LRW is very important, and has been around since Linux 2.6.20. Its well worth changing to LRW if you're using LUKS. TrueCrypt dropped CBC altogether, in favour of LRW, merely only supporting CBC for backward compatibility. This is due to known attacks on CBC which LRW (and EME) mitigates. For example the watermark attack. While EME solves even more attacks, it also generates much more I/O than CBC or LRW hence there is a performance drawback.
Just to be clear, the "well known" problems with loop-AES were shared by dm-crypt, and they were only well known because the loop-AES author acknowledged them loudly and fixed them while Clemens kept shouting "no no no there is no attack and you are stupid".
OpenSolaris has bad hardware support, and while Pawel did a terrific job the port for FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT isn't quite there yet. ZFS requires a lot of RAM and indeed 64-bit (FreeBSD/AMD64) is recommended. You'll need at least 1 GB RAM, with 512+ MB dedicated to ZFS. You'll need to fine-tune via sysctl.
The EPIA is nice but probably too slow for ZFS. At the vey least you can only use it as fileserver and will have to delegate other applications to other computers. Why not get a cheap, low-power dual-core AMD with EE (and SFF)? Mine (EE + SFF) has an idle of 10W and a TDP of 35W. I admit not as low-power as EPIA, but here that box is the only computer 24/7 on, and does a lot more than merely NAS.
OpenBSD on a fileserver? Firewall, sure. Fileserver w/RAID and disk encryption, no way. I would leave that task to FreeBSD (FreeNAS) or Linux (CryptoBox, Openfiler). If you are desperate for encrypted FS + RAID you can use MD + LUKS (Linux) or GRAID5 + GELI (FreeBSD) those are all available via FreeNAS, CryptoBox, and Openfiles. Suffice to say both have proven their stability, have a rich set of features (e.g. LRW), and are simple to set-up. The end-user NAS solutions are pretty sophisticated and have good web interfaces.
20 MB/sec is quite a shit performance IMO however if you don't use gigabit it'd be good enough. With GELI there is about 55% overhead compared to plain text. I haven't compared LUKS to plain text hence can't compare. On a side note, I doubt its useful to encrypt data you're receiving from distributed areas, nor that its useful to put such data in a RAID. A NAS doesn't run BitTorrent. If you're paranoid whereas you share your data over SMB, that might be the weakest point.
For our ricer folk, a nice, expensive RAID controller is necessary. For the smart people among this planet: do software XOR by getting an EE (or SFF) dual core AMD which are cheap and have a a low 10 idle W and have a low TDP (the SFF has 35W TDP). Get 4 Samsung SpinPoint T166 SATA (silent, low power, best bang for buck) and you have 1,5 TB RAID. All in all this costs about 650 EUR (probably less in USA) w/all hardware new including case, 2 * 1 GB RAM (2 * 0,5 GB would suffice too), and PSU. I should know, I bought and build such machine.
Forget ZFS for now. OpenSolaris has bad hardware support, and it is only partly ported on FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT where it isn't stable and a bug in it takes the whole system down. While it does have a rich set of features, it also doesn't support encryption yet, although the feature has been planned for a year and perhaps on FreeBSD it can be used together with GELI. Performance of ZFS is also not to write home about compared to GRAID5. ZFS isn't mature yet. Nor is FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT, ofcourse. It'll be part of FreeBSD 7.0 however, as an experimental feature.
Good point, but one could argue Windows Vista is merely a Windows NT version just like Ubuntu Linux 6.10 and 6.04 are Ubuntu Linux versions. Under the hood they share a lot of code. Other signs include NT version, and build number. Ofcourse, you can't have it both ways...
Slashdot Mirror
What about NTFS? 20 people posted about that in this thread. You don't even mention it, yet claim, 'FAT is really the only viable option at the moment'.
There are even Ext3 implementations available for Windows.
There are read-only implementations for ReiserFS (v3) available for Windows and FreeBSD.
A small NAS might be suffice too. Everyone speaks CIFS/NFS these days.
I have yet to meet one person who stopped using MSG and then later started using it again regularly again. Thats also anecdotal indeed, so you don't care much. Nasch, I just want to make one small point: test yourself. If you are healthy and happy with your lifestyle (including diet, and MSG intake but it involves many aspects) sure, go ahead. If not, you might have to adapt aspects, or might want to do this to prevent the worse. I have tested many food additives, drugs, and foods (on) myself compartmentalizing them learning their effects on body and brain. Afterwards, I cut back certain ingredients. In my youth I've used regularly alcohol, cannabis, nicotine (+ additives), coffee/caffein, MSG, aspartame, and sugar. Now I'm 24, I severely cut loose many of these substances and cut back a few of these substances, and now I feel a lot better. After I tested the effects of MSG out on my brain I definetely figured out it is a drug. It learned me to relate to the term excitotoxicity. Anecdotal, but you can also test and figure out for yourself should you feel the need. Thats what I want, not convince others to brainlessly change lifestyle cashing out to stupid diets while not learning.
Right. I can go w/you a long way on that path although I don't believe in holy paths. Now, I do wonder, did you read the first studies concerning MSG and aspartame? The ones based on which MSG and aspartame did NOT get approved by the FDA? Did you actually research what people who worked at the FDA at that time have to say?
One can certainly save their passwords. Just don't save them directly in an monolithic application which is highly interactive with the Internet such as a web browser. Use something like a virtual wallet such as KDE's Kwallet (GNOME has a similar feature). This way you assign complex passwords (8 random characters, alpha-numeric, CaSe SeNsiTiVe) e.g. made with the command apg which you all save in your Kwallet (or applications such as LUKS, GELI, GPG, or TrueCrypt can be used for this purpose). Your Kwallet you put a master password on, and this is the only password you have to remember. Various applications can directly access Kwallet (KDE applications such as Konqueror) however should your application not support this you can manually open your Kwallet.
Should you use LUKS, GELI, GPG, or TrueCrypt be sure to close the mount point after you accessed the data. Eventually, one could put this on their PDA using that to store the data instead of directly on a machine connected to the Internet. Although I don't have a PDA, I do like this setup. You securely save your passwords and have them with you whole time, but it does cost time and energy to retrieve the password. Hence, you do have a backup, while your data cannot be read from the desktop(s) themselves, whereas you circumvent becoming too lazy to remember your passwords because accessing the data on PDA costs a minute or so.
2) If you use AMD's X2/EE versions your TDP gets far lower (whereas cost of CPU increases by merely a couple of bucks). If you use X2/EE/SFF you get a TDP of 35W.
3) Price/performance wise, AMD is still a clear winner, hands down.
From the Kwallet handbook (a KDE utility; GNOME has equiv.): The wallet subsytem provides a convenient and secure way to manage all your passwords. I'm not sure if this can be done automatically (integrated in browser) but manually, using a master key/password, it is a good way to store passwords for those with Alzheimer or other memory trouble. One could even use GPG/PGP or TrueCrypt (or LUKS/GELI etcetera) as 'wallet'. As long as you can remember/have the master key its more secure and reliable than (sticky) papers, or a plethora of passwords to remember, or using the same password for various purposes. Just make sure you have this data backed up.
It is bogus, but for a different reason: They do point to one positive for the US, however: article quality. According to one of the researchers, 'the more often an article is cited by other publications, the higher quality it's believed to have. This is a classic argumentum ad populum from a so-called researcher.
GnoCCi, mmmmm!
Good points which should certainly be taken into account but it does not mean disk encryption is utterly useless. Let try to address them.
Changing password, key management are other examples of important features. If you log in from insecure computers (e.g. via SSH), consider to use USB stick + S/Key. GELI has emergency destruction which is also a useful feature. Another point to take into account is metadata on any NAS clients, and the NAS server itself. Ofcourse, you log out of your computer(s) when you're not behind 'em (e.g. sleep); that is computer security 101. In some jurisdictions such as UK you have to give your key whereas in other jurisdictions you don't have to cooperate w/your own prosecution, although you may be lied to and/or be intimidated. When someone kicks in your door, your setup should be made in such way, that even with all machines on, the data cannot be accessed. They'll then power down the NAS and they're doomed. Logging out Samba, OpenSSH, not saving root passwords on clients are all mandatory, but quite logic measures.
Here's what I payed for CPU/MB/RAM
AMD Athlon 64 X2 EE 3800+ 90nm/35W SFF 2.0 GHz BOX 63
Abit AN-M2 73
2048MB DDR2-667 PC-5400 Corsair ValueSelect (2x 1024) 81
Those were approx cheapest prices I could find a few weeks ago. All in 1 it costs 217 wihch is $293, + S&H. Hardware prices in USA are lower than in EU though. Note that 2x 512 MB would have been suffice too however given I'm not going to run pure NAS (ie. some other software on it) and might use ZFS in the future its also a wise choice. Dual-core is also overkill, but again non-pure NAS plus I like the low-power EE/SFF.
GP wrote:This says little about performance, and it matters a lot what you do with your NAS. You do use Samba. Do you even use (software) RAID at all? Disk encryption? On a P1 100 MHz?
My old servers (various Ultra 5 400 MHz in a redundant setup; later w/CARP) had a max read and write speed over Samba of approx 3 MB/sec. Enough for real-time XViD. The machines ran Linux 2.6.x with LUKS. Now, this setup did not even saturate on 100 Mbit, nor did it run any other CPU intensive applications. Process kcrypt was clearly the bugger on this system. If you want to do anything serious with your NAS (e.g. watching or burning a DVD) you're gonna need gbit for sure, and all modern hardware supports this. In hindsight I should not even have used LUKS on all the data, but my new setup is a bigger RAID w/hardly any disk encryption. Still, software XOR requires CPU power. However the advantage of the processor I outlined above, is that it uses 7W idle (less than 10) and a TDP of 35W. You will hardly ever use 35W on this machine if you only use it for software XOR. The bottleneck on your VIAs will be the processor, I am sure of that. Please post some benchmarks?
I'm glad you're satisfied with your VIA, I'm satisfied with my X2/EE/SFF processor + other hardware. Its also relatively low-power, and is able to do a lot more as well. Its the only system I have on 24/7, and the machine even does firewalling on a small home network. Saved me the costs of a Soekris, whereas my electricity bill/initial costs aren't that much higher than VIAs + Soekris. I can even run remote X on this server, running X applications 24/7, without having any other computer (desktop) on. Oh and I don't mean to brag, I just want people to make a conscious decision.
Theo, good for you. We don't use FTP servers on NAS, nor do we use such on RAID + full disk encryption setups as FTP defeats their purpose. We only use SMB/NFS on a NAS.
Its funny how the OpenBSD zealots are always ACs. Why don't you go play in your own garden? Now, I give you a point for having implemented PKCS#5 PBKDF2 since OpenBSD 4.0 (quite late but still), but you still miss obvious features such as not limited to: LRW, key management, emergency destroy, changing password without encryption. Besides, the performance of this setup is shit. You can tell by the fact that the write performance is 16 MB/sec, whereas the read performance is merely 25 MB/sec. The fact the author is possitive about such is striking. Note, how it does matter whether this is benchmarked w/bonnie++ on the box, or via say Samba, or some other method. Still, they both should be much higher even with the overhead of full disk encryption.
However, this quote of yours is a lie. Update yourself. LRW is very important, and has been around since Linux 2.6.20. Its well worth changing to LRW if you're using LUKS. TrueCrypt dropped CBC altogether, in favour of LRW, merely only supporting CBC for backward compatibility. This is due to known attacks on CBC which LRW (and EME) mitigates. For example the watermark attack. While EME solves even more attacks, it also generates much more I/O than CBC or LRW hence there is a performance drawback.Ah, I see. When will loop-AES support LRW?
Why LUKS was developed. LUKS supports LRW, ESSIV, and TKS1.
Besides, OpenBSD's disk encryption is vulnerable to dictionary attacks as it doesn't support PKCS#5 PBKDF2.
OpenSolaris has bad hardware support, and while Pawel did a terrific job the port for FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT isn't quite there yet. ZFS requires a lot of RAM and indeed 64-bit (FreeBSD/AMD64) is recommended. You'll need at least 1 GB RAM, with 512+ MB dedicated to ZFS. You'll need to fine-tune via sysctl.
The EPIA is nice but probably too slow for ZFS. At the vey least you can only use it as fileserver and will have to delegate other applications to other computers. Why not get a cheap, low-power dual-core AMD with EE (and SFF)? Mine (EE + SFF) has an idle of 10W and a TDP of 35W. I admit not as low-power as EPIA, but here that box is the only computer 24/7 on, and does a lot more than merely NAS.
OpenBSD on a fileserver? Firewall, sure. Fileserver w/RAID and disk encryption, no way. I would leave that task to FreeBSD (FreeNAS) or Linux (CryptoBox, Openfiler). If you are desperate for encrypted FS + RAID you can use MD + LUKS (Linux) or GRAID5 + GELI (FreeBSD) those are all available via FreeNAS, CryptoBox, and Openfiles. Suffice to say both have proven their stability, have a rich set of features (e.g. LRW), and are simple to set-up. The end-user NAS solutions are pretty sophisticated and have good web interfaces.
20 MB/sec is quite a shit performance IMO however if you don't use gigabit it'd be good enough. With GELI there is about 55% overhead compared to plain text. I haven't compared LUKS to plain text hence can't compare. On a side note, I doubt its useful to encrypt data you're receiving from distributed areas, nor that its useful to put such data in a RAID. A NAS doesn't run BitTorrent. If you're paranoid whereas you share your data over SMB, that might be the weakest point.
For our ricer folk, a nice, expensive RAID controller is necessary. For the smart people among this planet: do software XOR by getting an EE (or SFF) dual core AMD which are cheap and have a a low 10 idle W and have a low TDP (the SFF has 35W TDP). Get 4 Samsung SpinPoint T166 SATA (silent, low power, best bang for buck) and you have 1,5 TB RAID. All in all this costs about 650 EUR (probably less in USA) w/all hardware new including case, 2 * 1 GB RAM (2 * 0,5 GB would suffice too), and PSU. I should know, I bought and build such machine.
Forget ZFS for now. OpenSolaris has bad hardware support, and it is only partly ported on FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT where it isn't stable and a bug in it takes the whole system down. While it does have a rich set of features, it also doesn't support encryption yet, although the feature has been planned for a year and perhaps on FreeBSD it can be used together with GELI. Performance of ZFS is also not to write home about compared to GRAID5. ZFS isn't mature yet. Nor is FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT, ofcourse. It'll be part of FreeBSD 7.0 however, as an experimental feature.
Good point, but one could argue Windows Vista is merely a Windows NT version just like Ubuntu Linux 6.10 and 6.04 are Ubuntu Linux versions. Under the hood they share a lot of code. Other signs include NT version, and build number. Ofcourse, you can't have it both ways...