Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux

[Ex-Cyber]

190mb/sec sounds just like the data never hits the disk.

He says "cached write throughput", so you're absolutely right. I think the more interesting question is what the CPU utilization is relative to those speeds. Lots of operations can be sped up by feeding them more cycles, and if one driver gets e.g. 50% of the throughput with 20% of the CPU load, that could be a win depending on the application.

[droidhacker]

I don't know why them having a few regulation issues (not criminal, btw) means that everything they do and say is complete garbage. Poisoning the well fallacy much?

Actually, everything they do and say *is* garbage. There is no question of this. Criminal... ok, maybe that's stretching it, but they certainly are very frequently caught wilfully breaking the law, stealing source code, anti-competitive practices, etc.

And on top of that, their product PROVABLY has poor security. If you connect their trash to the internet, you pretty well can't help but get raped by china and loaded up with spyware.

Actually, it is. Not as easily replaceable, but you don't have to run their shell.

So difficult in fact, that when you're finished, you have a system that doesn't actually do anything. Yeah, I can dd zeros over the entire disk for even better security. Or just pull the power plug. Simply put, without their full bloat, their system doesn't do the only things that their system is ever chosen TO do.

And who cares, really, if you can click cancel and get admin access. Once you have physical access to a machine, it's considered good as owned. Same with Linux. Linux you just have to boot to runlevel one and you have a root shell. Either that or pop in a livecd. Where are your complaints about Linux?

Who said anything about physical access? Here you go, trying to prove your point by introducing new variables that aren't relevant to the discussion. Physical access? I keep my door locked, thank you very much. No physical access there.

Face it, you are just a freetard spreading FUD and garbage.

'freetard' -- there it is... the universal word used to attack against those advocating more intelligent choices once you've run out of arguments. Apparently, I've made my point. I'll keep going though, you seem really emotional.

You don't know what you are talking about and whenever you are called out on your incorrect understanding of how the system works,

No, sorry, I actually do understand how things work, as is evident by my ability to keep the discussion focused on the facts and not trolling with this kind of nonsense personal accusations that you seem to enjoy. You can't think of anything intelligent to say, so you try to attack me on a personal level?

you respond with accusations of fraud and being paid by MS to say things (lol, I don't work for MS and have spent most of my computing time in the last six years not using Windows, mostly Linux and also Mac OS X).

Really? Where did I accuse you? I've just gone back over everything I've written, and NOWHERE did I accuse you of anything. I asked you a question, which you failed to respond to intelligently, but a question is very far from an accusation.

You are another worthless hack giving the Linux community a bad name. Not everything Microsoft does is bad and evil. Not everything the Linux world does is good and right. Welcome to the land of shades of gray.

Never suggested that it was. I'm merely pointing out that you seem to have bought into their propaganda. I didn't say that everything open source was perfect, I said that MS is simply far more IMPERFECT. In fact, I actually used to have some level of respect for MS, but that ended when they stopped innovating and shifted their entire business platform over to trolling. I think that happened roughly when it was turned over from Gates to Ballmer.

So you know what that means? It means that YOU are the hack giving the Linux community a bad name.

[droidhacker]

Yeah, that's a problem too, which is slowly being addressed. You want to run as few things as root as possible in order to minimize attack surface. If the X server is running as root, then if it gets compromised, the infected code can do anything root can do, which is everything. If it were running as some type of sandbox server, the damage would be a lot more limited.

Ever heard of runlevel 3? X is not a requirement.

[smitty3268]

Ever heard of runlevel 3? X is not a requirement.

Same is true of Windows - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l...8WS.10%29.aspx

The Server Core installation option is an option that you can use for installing Windows Server 2008 or Windows Server 2008 R2. A Server Core installation provides a minimal environment for running specific server roles, which reduces the maintenance and management requirements and the attack surface for those server roles.

To accomplish this, the Server Core installation option installs only the subset of the binary files that are required by the supported server roles. For example, the Explorer shell is not installed as part of a Server Core installation. Instead, the default user interface for a server running a Server Core installation is the command prompt.

[droidhacker]

Same is true of Windows - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l...8WS.10%29.aspx

Sure, but you can't actually *do anything* with it. Might as well pull the plug for maximum security.

[smitty3268]

Sure, but you can't actually *do anything* with it. Might as well pull the plug for maximum security.

Like what, run desktop games? Good luck trying to keep that secure, no matter what the OS.

Windows core supports

A server running a Server Core installation of Windows Server 2008 R2 supports the following server roles:

Active Directory Certificate Services

Active Directory Domain Services

Active Directory Lightweight Directory Services (AD LDS)

DHCP Server

DNS Server

File Services (including File Server Resource Manager)

Hyper-V

Print and Document Services

Streaming Media Services

Web Server (including a subset of ASP.NET)

And of course pretty much anything you compile to work without a GUI. I'm not sure why you think that's so useless.

[schmidtbag]

@siride, droidhacker is mostly right about almost everything he said.

windows' security is severely flawed, droidhacker did a pretty decent job explaining why. in a unix based system, nobody has access to any place but their own home folder, except for root. anyone who knows linux always HIGHLY discourages ANYONE from logging in as root at any time. thats why sudo was made.

going back to things you've said:

By the way, have you considered that X display managers run as root? They could easily launch programs as root on behalf of the user, just like WINLOGON can in Windows.

no, like i said before, you can't just do whatever the hell you want on a unix based system. without root access, X is protected from outsiders. whether it's a stranger using your computer or remote access, it isn't easy to just suddenly become root and go nuts. just because root is running a program it doesn't mean suddenly everyone can control it. you can't even end X without being root.
in windows, you don't have to be admin to make things happen automatically. you don't have to be admin to screw up the system by deleting or replacing files. in windows, it's fairly common for anyone to get administrative access. once you get a taste of administrative privilages, everything like UAC (which many people disable out of getting annoyed by it) or ntfs' special permissions do nothing to protect you. this is where droidhacker is getting the impression that it's just smoke and mirrors. those features do work, but they are easily avoidable for the average windows computer.

And who cares, really, if you can click cancel and get admin access. Once you have physical access to a machine, it's considered good as owned. Same with Linux. Linux you just have to boot to runlevel one and you have a root shell. Either that or pop in a livecd. Where are your complaints about Linux?

uh... this is what the entire argument is all about, so of course people care. your machine should be protected regardless of who and where someone is accessing it. any unix-like system set up by a competent person is not going to set up their computer, allowing someone to "boot to runlevel one" and "have a root shell". why? because you need a password to be root or do things as root - something windows often DOESN'T have set up. i have seen so many windows xp, vista, and 7 setups where users have admin access and no password, and windows doesn't ask for one. linux these days doesn't even let you continue an install process without putting in a root password. root handles the booting process but it doesn't mean you can control it and suddently get root access when it's done. you can set it up to do that, but you're a complete idiot if you let that happen, and as usual, you need root access to do it in the first place.
as for the live cd, that can access any os. however, if you're really that paranoid about someone using such a thing on your computer, a smart person would use some form of encryption.

[colo]

Whew, the amount of jackasses in this forum make reading it nowadays even more tiresome than what it used to be a while ago. I'm impressed, but not in a good way.

Anyway, this Phoronix "news" story "cites" a singleton "data" point of a "benchmark" that wasn't conducted in the open, with none of its (supposed) "methodology" documented or outlined, and performed by someone who probably has a vested interest in having his pet-project come out on top. My quoting is therefore deliberate.

[schmidtbag]

Like what, run desktop games? Good luck trying to keep that secure, no matter what the OS.

Windows core supports

And of course pretty much anything you compile to work without a GUI. I'm not sure why you think that's so useless.

any unix based system can run desktop games securely because it works exactly the same way as every other program that ever runs - the game data is stored in a place where only root has access to read and write. it doesn't matter if you have a gui or not.

who the hell uses windows without a gui and has time (or the authority/access) to compile everything they want in a cli? that literally isn't useless but comparatively, it's very very useless and pointless.

[blackshard]

NTFS-3G is already quite fast; my Freecom 80GB USB disk works with 25 MB/s write speed using Linux. On Windows it writes at 20 MB/s, using exactly the same laptop. (The limit is not the disk on the other side of the copy; the Western Digital 250GB of my laptop can read files much faster)

ntfs-3g is absolutely *slow*. Do a test on a sata interface without the USB bottleneck and you will see a miserable throughput with an excessive cpu-usage and a lot of cpu power wasted in wait-state.