FYI you don't need Windows Store to install Terminal. You can download it from a browser as well
Windows on Btrfs
201–210 of 286 posts
Re: Windows on Btrfs
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Linux audience is software engineers and the companies they who employ them.
The need is more personal than corporate.
There are corporate solutions (like the Paragon drivers), they just suck. Paragon tried merging this code into the Linux kernel, but the code was so bad and unmaintainable that it was rejected. The FOSS solution is using FUSE, but that requires a UNIX-like OS for easy porting. Unless Windows ditches the NT kernel altogether, I don't think you can expect native filesystem extensions beyond NFS support.
GNU philosophy is not about moneymaking or footing the bill. Sometimes a problem gets worse when you throw money at it.
Re: Windows on Btrfs
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe UDF?
Probably. Last time I check UDF is a format supported by the 3 major OSes out of the box.
I recall getting UDF cross compatibility required a bit of non-trivial work[0], did this improve recently?
Re: Windows on Btrfs
#204[dead]
Re: Windows on Btrfs
#205Re: Windows on Btrfs
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless it supports the transactional filesystem API, Windows Update won't even work in the first place. ReFS boot in fact is affected by the same issue at this time.
I thought that was deprecated since Windows Vista or 7.
It was introduced in Vista, deprecated for external use a bit later but the servicing system is still a heavy user of it.
Re: Windows on Btrfs
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, if you're going to exclude the common use cases, obviously it's going to be rare. (: People still use local storage. (I'd also like native ext4 support in Windows.)
Yeah, but when I boot Windows for gaming, I don't care about sharing data with Linux. And given the availability of cloud storage, I can just upload whatever little I need to share.
Not all dual boot systems are "main OS" plus "wintendo." Quite a lot of the ones I encounter on personal machines are, certainly, but people doing actual dev stuff on both is still a use case.
Re: Windows on Btrfs
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in the day, and I mean like mid-late 90's, you could actually install the Linux kernel, files etc., straight onto a Windows FAT partition and boot into it. Not exactly what was being asked for, but a weird old fact I'd forgotten about.
Sometime in the early 2000s, when microarchitectural features for virtualization were rare, I used coLinux in a working capacity. It has a design was amazing at how well it worked given the constrained size of the code changes. In short, it ran a copy of Linux in supervisor mode in addition to Windows (this is the "driver mode"). At the same time. Both in supervisor mode. As a giant coroutines yielding to one another…
I was really quite fond of colinux, out of assorted VM tech, colinux, cygwin and WSL1 and 2 that have provided me with enough of an X11+xterm+ssh rig to get work done comfortably on a windows machine I think colinux and WSL1 have been the least friction overall.
Re: Windows on Btrfs
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
I enjoy it as ext4++. Would I trust it for RAID? Not particularly. There seems to be a decent amount of foot-guns still and I would greatly prefer just using ZFS. Granted, I do trust Synology using btrfs but they are also subject matter experts on the topic.
Synology doesn’t use btrfs in raid mode either. They put it on top of their LVM-based RAID instead.
I thought I heard that as well but I had another person disagree so I’m not sure who is right.
Re: Windows on Btrfs
#210> I forgot to take screenshots but it was the AMD stuff from the Microsoft Store failing to launch. What does AMD mean here? AMD the processor company? I don't see how that is related to changing the filesystem.
I think it's the "from the Microsoft Store" part that's going wrong, and it just so happens the author noticed it on AMD-related store installed stuff.