NTFS Driver

[iago]

And yet the internet is hosted primarily on Linux machines...

It would appear they work just fine for global networks.  Well, that's only in practice...I'm not sure how it would work in theory though.

"In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they are not."

Heh, to be honest, I don't think a sane network administrator could use something with permissions as simple as the standard Linux FS's I've used (ext2/3).  Not to say I think ext2/3 are crappy file systems, but they're just not practical or robust enough for a huge network.

I don't quite know how you figure that.  Besides what's already been said, the best permissions are the simplest, the ones where it's most difficult to make mistakes.  There's a huge problem on Windows of people not understanding the permissions because they're so complicated, whereas Linux permissions make it easy.  It's Occam's Razor all over again: simpler is often the most effective.  I've never found myself limited. 

Of course, that's an entirely different argument. 

[Sidoh]

And yet the internet is hosted primarily on Linux machines...

It would appear they work just fine for global networks.  Well, that's only in practice...I'm not sure how it would work in theory though.

I'm talking about a multi-user network on a domain, not the internet where almost everything is accessed from one local account.

I don't quite know how you figure that.  Besides what's already been said, the best permissions are the simplest, the ones where it's most difficult to make mistakes.  There's a huge problem on Windows of people not understanding the permissions because they're so complicated, whereas Linux permissions make it easy.  It's Occam's Razor all over again: simpler is often the most effective.  I've never found myself limited. 

That's wrong.  "The best file system" is totally dependant on the situation.  I'm not saying Linux file systems aren't viable solutions for some situations, but I am saying that NTFS is better for a domain with a lot of users (my school district has 800 or so and I can't imagine using anything else.  it would be such a pain!)

I think you're confusing 'complexity' with 'versatility.'  Trust me, it's not hard to fix permission issues on Windows servers.  I've been doing it for the last week.  We're restructuring our entire server structure (converting 'building servers' into 'role servers,' which is much more sensible now that all the servers are located in a single location).  NTFS (not to mention active directory and all of the other server management tools that come standard with 2003 server) have the features they do for a reason: people use them.  They don't add in extra fluff to make things more difficult for admins.

Of course, that's an entirely different argument. 

[iago]

My University has 25,000 users, who are all on UNIX.  That seems to work out pretty well. 

[Sidoh]

My University has 25,000 users, who are all on UNIX.  That seems to work out pretty well. 

Every single one of your servers were *NIX?  I seem to remember you telling me that you had a Windows box for Active Directory.

Arguing with you about Linux/anything to do with Linux/the way you use computers is about as annoying as arguing with Warrior about Microsoft.    (I'm kidding )

[Warrior]

I was originally kidding. However this is a good contribution.

[iago]

My University has 25,000 users, who are all on UNIX.  That seems to work out pretty well. 

Every single one of your servers were *NIX?  I seem to remember you telling me that you had a Windows box for Active Directory.

Arguing with you about Linux/anything to do with Linux/the way you use computers is about as annoying as arguing with Warrior about Microsoft.    (I'm kidding )

Sorry, I missed this post. 

Yes, there are 25,000 UNIX users on a single cluster of servers.  There's about a dozen servers, and your files/settings/everything are constant across them. 

There are also windows workstations.  But the email and all that kind of stuff goes through UNIX. 

[Warrior]

I'm not familiar with neither set of permissions (Really, I never cared for them) but what are the other obvious advantages to having NTFS? Is it just to ease the pain of transfer from Windows to Linux? If this would be converted into a kernel driver what advantages would the FS bring over say ext3?

[Joe]

Psh, everything related to Linux is eternally in beta.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, even if it is a joke. 

That's the same as saying that nothing made by Microsoft works at all. 

The vast majority of software has a stable version and a beta version/head.  I actually can't think of anything I use that doesn't have a stable (non-beta) version. 

You've never used any of my software, I guess.

[Sidoh]

Sorry, I missed this post. 

Yes, there are 25,000 UNIX users on a single cluster of servers.  There's about a dozen servers, and your files/settings/everything are constant across them. 

There are also windows workstations.  But the email and all that kind of stuff goes through UNIX. 

This is a domain?  I can't imagine samba emulating AD is anywhere near as robust or stable as AD itself.

[Newby]

You've never used any of my software, I guess.

I think only you have used your software.

iago is talking about software used in the real world that is stable and not extremely buggy.

[deadly7]

You've never used any of my software, I guess.

I think only you have used your software.

iago is talking about software used in the real world that is stable and not extremely buggy.

And closer to finished than Joe's end results.