281–286 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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!
Given there's now native NTFS support in the Linux kernel, you could also do that that the other way around.
Of course you can also do a cursed setup with 2 partitions: windows on Btrfs and Linux on NTFS just to maximize the chaotic nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but the Linux audience is certainly not one that pays for such things. Like the Parent Poster explained, this is a hard and niche technical problem. Someone has to foot the bill for this, and apparently there is a "need" for it but no market to sell it.
If there was a Linux OS focusing on desktop/laptop users that offered a highly polished user experience - comparable to the best of MacOS and Windows - I would be very happy to pay for it. I am probably in the minority of Linux users though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think exfat has recently gained support in all three platforms but it's not reliable for an internal hard drive (I think?). I've been doing this for a few years now. It just doesn't support some stuff, like permissions, but for just a pile of files, it's fine.
No symlinks, no transparent compression… there's quite a few mission things
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No symlinks, no transparent compression… there's quite a few mission things
I haven't stubbed my toe on the former yet, but I agree it's not great. I'm mainly storing media, photos, etc. (relatively not compressible) so the latter doesn't matter much to me. I think that's probably a common use case for a drive you can read anywhere, so I still like ExFAT for that, generally speaking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't stubbed my toe on the former yet, but I agree it's not great. I'm mainly storing media, photos, etc. (relatively not compressible) so the latter doesn't matter much to me. I think that's probably a common use case for a drive you can read anywhere, so I still like ExFAT for that, generally speaking.
Is the performance decent for the ‘cost’ of lacking features?