|
will this new file system allow me to omit "--iconv=utf-8-mac,utf-8" from all my rsync commands? if not i don't really care
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
did anyone say "ReiserFS: he murdered his wife" yet
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
SpaceAceJase posted:will it murder MY WIFE?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:lol @ a bunch of Linux losers hating on ntfs. go back to your hosed up file systems that don't even have working permissions, let alone auditing, encryption, or compression. NTFS really needs some kind of central ACL database instead of defining permissions individually on each object
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
there are dynamic ACLs now but I haven't really looked into it. you're always going to need some kind of descriptors on the object otherwise theres no way to know how to secure it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:there are dynamic ACLs now but I haven't really looked into it. you're always going to need some kind of descriptors on the object otherwise theres no way to know how to secure it. sure but if you're trying to do a mass permissions change its absolutely painful to touch every single object when you could just be defining it on a parent object and then when you access an object have it parse the local ACLs and then the parent objects for anything that should be propagating to it. a db of folder hierarchy and permissions could do that, while leaving the clutter of individual file ACLs local to the object. would add a small amount of overhead to normal access but worth the trade-off when it comes to administrative tasks and who really cares about a bit of extra latency for some shared departmental drive. or maybe dynamic acls fixes that and I haven't kept up[
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
wait, so you want to worsen performance during the most common use case to improve it for occasional admin tasks? how frequently are you touching acls anyway? everything should be defined with security groups, you're not fiddling with permissions for individual accounts
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
if you're starting from fresh that's fine, but when you're inheriting a gigantic lovely mess of legacy bad choices its extremely painful to fix and plenty of places are in that boat. then the merger or re-org or whatever happens and the permissions structure that you carefully laid out no longer works and new use cases come up and now you're touching every object again and hoping like hell someone didn't set something along the chain to block inheritance and gently caress everything up in the process. who cares if you tack a few ms on to the front of a file access request for a file server? the overhead is imperceptible to the user. I wouldn't advocate it as the default filesystem mode, but it would be useful for file server volumes
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
ntfs does have inherited descriptors as well, but if you invalidate everything (i.e. want to migrate the whole structure) you likely still have to rebuild every descriptor, even if the ones on the files themselves contain little of interest shouldn't be that common an occurrence anyway
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
apfs sounds good but tbqh i suspect it is the usual engineer stupidity about clean rewrites, where the new thing becomes a mess before it gets all the features and bugfixes necessary to make it a true hfs replacement hopefully it turns out well but i rather doubt the end user experience will be improved to an extent at all proportional to the effort required
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:sure but if you're trying to do a mass permissions change its absolutely painful to touch every single object when you could just be defining it on a parent object and then when you access an object have it parse the local ACLs and then the parent objects for anything that should be propagating to it. a db of folder hierarchy and permissions could do that, while leaving the clutter of individual file ACLs local to the object. would add a small amount of overhead to normal access but worth the trade-off when it comes to administrative tasks and who really cares about a bit of extra latency for some shared departmental drive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
why didnt you click on murder
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
lol @ using discretionary access control in 2016
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:who cares if you tack a few ms on to the front of a file access request for a file server? the overhead is imperceptible to the user. I wouldn't advocate it as the default filesystem mode, but it would be useful for file server volumes when your users try to concurrently access files and your server can't handle a fraction of the load it previously could because of the compounded overhead they will care and so will your boss, and eventually you, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:did anyone say "ReiserFS: he murdered his wife" yet No ones made the "and distribute parts of her over several trees" part of the joke yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Red Square Bear posted:No ones made the "and distribute parts of her over several trees" part of the joke yet. thats a good 1
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:did anyone say "ReiserFS: he murdered his wife" yet Captain Foo posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
MALE SHOEGAZE posted:growing up a FAT kid Nice!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
i have a theory that when steve died he had all the good programmers at apple interred with him like a pharaoh taking all his worldly belongings with him to the underworld
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Stymie posted:i have a theory that when steve died he had all the good programmers at apple interred with him like a pharaoh taking all his worldly belongings with him to the underworld maybe it's like the incas and so Steve still has his people and timc must forge ahead and bring new land and subjects to his name?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
Stymie posted:i have a theory that when steve died he had all the good programmers at apple interred with him like a pharaoh taking all his worldly belongings with him to the underworld forestall wasn't just the guy putting leather daddy textures on elements in OS X and iOS . turns out he probably was the reason the os worked so well
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2016 14:51
|
|