I wish Microsoft adopted and upstreamed changes to OpenZFS instead of duplicating all this effort.
ReFS is better than NTFS, but Microsoft refuses to let regular users have it
Submitted 22 hours ago by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 20 hours ago
glen_malley@lemmy.ca 13 hours ago
Problem is Microsoft has zero interest in zfs. Not even as far as answering questions the openzfs windows dev asks them.
daggermoon@piefed.world 7 hours ago
Does Windows support any filesystems that don’t suck?
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 20 hours ago
It could be Sco vs Linux all over again
KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 hours ago
May I be the first one here to say… Fuck Microslop
Brkdncr@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
It’s not ready yet. It’s good for some specific use cases but it’s not anything the typical end user needs.
RedEyeFlightControl@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
This. NTFS is still the gold standard for stability. ReFS is meant for data ops, and while it’s fairly stable, and offers a lot of advantages, it’s not perfect and can suffer greatly if used incorrectly. Until the quirks are gone, users are probably better off with NTFS for a lot of reasons.
fox2263@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Yet?? They’ve been making it since the Stone Age. I read about it in my teens
undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 16 hours ago
Right? I’ve gone through ReiserFS, ext3, ext4, XFS, ZFS; hell on macOS I’ve been through HFS+ and AFS. And clunky ol’ Microsoft is still on fucking NTFS.
Brkdncr@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Maybe “it’s not needed yet” is more accurate.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 19 hours ago
Why would you use either over btrFS?
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
What a click bait title. Article goes on to explain the rational reasons why ReFS wasn’t built for mainstream use and doing so might bloat its performance on the very server systems it was designed to be efficient for.