Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Windows on Btrfs

lilysthings.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 286 posts

Re: Windows on Btrfs

#131

Post by nailer »

csdvrx wrote: post #101
nailer wrote: post #27

Whoa. So why didn’t the Windows store work? Some kind of trusted environment thing?

In Linux terms, think about what would happen if you tried to use ACL (or fsattr or whatever non standard stuff) on a filesystem not supporting ACL: it would throw weird errors, and you may not properly handle them if you expected all filesystems to support ACLs.

User land generally doesn’t care about file system specifics. Even in your ACL, example, opening a file would succeed or fail.

I suspect this is much more likely to be a secure environment issue. Windows store wants to prevent piracy, there is no way the environment can be trusted because the boot loader wasn’t signed by Microsoft, and therefore may be modified to help people pirate software.

Re: Windows on Btrfs

#132

Post by Thorrez »

> 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.

Re: Windows on Btrfs

#133

Post by jmmv »

PhilipRoman wrote: post #130
userbinator wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what we hoped WSL would be like, but it turned out very, very different.

Can you elaborate? It seems to me that this is exactly how WSL works. \\wsl$\ provides access to the Linux filesystem

WSL 1 was mostly like this, where Linux shared the file system with Windows, albeit in a subdirectory.

WSL 2 is a completely different beast, with Linux storing its file system in a virtual disk image. \\wsl$\ just gives you the illusion of being the same system, but that’s just a networked file system.

See https://jmmv.dev/2020/11/wsl-lost-potential.html

Re: Windows on Btrfs

#134

Post by lostmsu »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #36

This is really cool and speaks to the modularity of the Windows file system stack. I love projects that customize Windows (working against its closed-source nature). There’s an OpenZFS port to Windows[0]. I wonder if my hopes of having ZFS on Windows (including the boot drive, because I would love to be able to snapshot and rollback) would actually be possible. [0] https://github.com/openzfsonwindows/openzfs

But Windows lets you snapshot and rollback via Volume Shadow Copying (System Restore in UI + 3rd party tool Shadow Explorer to browse snapshots).

Re: Windows on Btrfs

#135

Post by sm_1024 »

LukeShu wrote: post #23

I'm intending to write up some docs and announce it in the next few days, but since this thread is here, I might as well mention it now: On the topic of alternative btrfs implementations, I've been working on https://git.lukeshu.com/btrfs-progs-ng/ which is written entirely in Go. Its `btrfs-rec inspect mount --pv=/dev/whatever` is a read-only FUSE implementation of btrfs that is more fault-tolerant (of corrupt files…

I wonder how hard it would be to replace FUSE with userspace block driver. That seems to be focused on performance.

https://lwn.net/Articles/903855/

Re: Windows on Btrfs

#136

Post by eviks »

userbinator wrote: post #90
qbasic_forever wrote: post #16

Haha wow that is so ridiculous it's awesome. Seeing both the Linux root and Windows root with Program Files living right next to usr, etc. is _wild_. Very cool hack!

This is what we hoped WSL would be like, but it turned out very, very different.

Yeah, very unfortunate they gave up :(

Re: Windows on Btrfs

#137

Post by KAMSPioneer »

redder23 wrote: post #125

Btrfs still has no native encryption right? There is Dislocker that lets you open Windows partions encryption with Bitlocker. I switched from btrfs to zfs because Ubuntu has it naively integrated into the install. There was some issues about it recently about possible removal or some tools because badly maintained though. So if I want everything encrypted this is not helping me. Opening LUKS from Windows project is d…

If I recall correctly, the removal is the ZFS Event Daemon from Ubuntu, not ZFS itself.

Which is pretty much fine; it was never finished anyway. Ambitious project with which Canonical seems to have bitten off more than it can chew...

However a cursory search doesn't turn up any more info, so, grain of salt.

Re: Windows on Btrfs

#138

Post by kimixa »

sm_1024 wrote: post #135
LukeShu wrote: post #23

I'm intending to write up some docs and announce it in the next few days, but since this thread is here, I might as well mention it now: On the topic of alternative btrfs implementations, I've been working on https://git.lukeshu.com/btrfs-progs-ng/ which is written entirely in Go. Its `btrfs-rec inspect mount --pv=/dev/whatever` is a read-only FUSE implementation of btrfs that is more fault-tolerant (of corrupt files…

I wonder how hard it would be to replace FUSE with userspace block driver. That seems to be focused on performance. https://lwn.net/Articles/903855/

Isn't that implementing a block device, so the level below the filesystem?

Re: Windows on Btrfs

#140

Post by mmerlin »

HyperSane wrote: post #128
leoc wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanting to dual-boot sometimes isn't that rare, surely. And local storage for documents remains popular too. It seems to reflect the reality that serious Linux development effort has been very server-focussed for a long time.

Why would I dual boot when I could use a VM?

For performance, to use the entire RAM and CPU of the bare metal machine
Post reply on HN