Comment by bombcar
1 year ago
Is there a single filesystem in the world (besides "simple" ones like FAT) that both has an open standard AND is licensed in a "usable" codebase (MIT or other "non-copyleft" license)?
1 year ago
Is there a single filesystem in the world (besides "simple" ones like FAT) that both has an open standard AND is licensed in a "usable" codebase (MIT or other "non-copyleft" license)?
I think UDF was meant to be this, though I don't think it supports everything you'd want. Does NTFS have licensing issues though?
NTFS has serious performance issues, nobody should use it.
AFAIK that's an incorrect meme that just won't die. The performance issues you're thinking of have nothing to do with the filesystem itself, but with the I/O subsystem in Windows more generally. If you have evidence otherwise please share.
6 replies →
zfs?
correct. but it's also a management system so perhaps they only want a files system? no idea why more don't use zfs. especially after the auto expansion update earlier in the year.
IMO the main reason is that ~90% of ZFS benefits only show up with multiple drives which (unfortunately) is fairly uncommon outside of servers.
2 replies →
Apple almost went with ZFS and Sun pissed off Jobs by mentioning it early (IIRC).
1 reply →
xfs.
if GPL is a non-starter for you, youre missing the point of the open standard. apple already discloses a litany of various GPL it ships. XFS would be no different.