Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> NTFS has a better permissions model than UNIX does
> 
>   I like how you are comparing a file system to an operating system, like
> they were the same type of thing, comparable to each other.

If UNIX permissions systems suck, you're not going to be able to write a 
decent file system permissions mechanism, unless you go outside the realm of 
UNIX.  (E.g., SQL has a sophisticated permissions system implemented under 
UNIX, but you can't access it via the normal UNIX mechanisms. The same holds 
for GFS.)

Just like if your file system sucks, it doesn't matter how good your 
permission system is in the OS, it's not going to work on the files. (e.g., 
FAT under NT sucks permissions-wise.)

NTFS only runs under NT/XP/Vista/etc.  NTFS under UNIX has a suckful 
permission system, indeed even worse than ext under UNIX. But I knew if I 
said XP has a better permission system, someone would gripe about FAT under 
XP being worse than UNIX, so I phrased it the way I did very carefully. The 
thing holding back good permissions for a file system on Windows is the file 
system (FAT sucks, NTFS is good). The thing holding back good permissions 
for a file system on UNIX is the kernel (all FS's suck equally, because the 
infrastructure needed just isn't in the kernel). Hence the comparison.

Unless you have an example of a UNIX file system whose permissions are 
comparable to NTFS's? If you do, let me know, because that would be awesome.

>   (One thing I really fail to understand about NTFS: Since NTFS has so
> many fancy features, why doesn't WinXP support them? And by support I mean
> it doesn't offer any kind of user interface to handle them, not even for
> power users, who could benefit from it.

Like what is lacking?  A lot of the more sophisticated features don't make 
sense to use without the backing of particular software. For example, it 
doesn't make sense to provide a detailed user interface for offlined files 
if you don't have any backup software installed that creates offlined files.

The only NTFS feature I'm aware of that doesn't come with some GUI built 
into explorer somewhere to handle it is hard and soft links.

>   Is Vista any better in this regard? Knowing Microsoft, I wouldn't be
> surprised if it wasn't.)

It depends what features you're talking about, but generally, yes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message