NTFS Support For OpenBSD

Dan writes "Julien Bordet has ported code from NetBSD to support NTFS4 and NTFS5 in OpenBSD-current. He has heavily tested read accesses to his Windows 2000 partition, and that has worked fine. Julien says that there is an existing port, but his port is new and adds NTFS5 support."

NTFS support would help everyone.

[Futurepower(R)]

NTFS read-write support would be a VERY big deal. It would be one less way that Microsoft isolates its customers.

read only?

[Drakon]

I don't see any references to writing.

I don't tihnk anyone can write to these damn things...

*shrug* basically, I don't see any reason to run a secure OS (openbsd) on the same machine as -blech- windows, so this has very little use (ie, moving a drive to another machine when the original machine can't read it, etc)

Re:read only?

[evilviper]

I don't see any references to writing.

Then why don't you try reading the article? You'd learn much more that way.

Yes, it says there is limited write support, mainly without file creation or deletion support. Hey, it's better than nothing.

Personally, I would prefer not having NTFS support at all... It just encourages everyone to use Microsoft's filesystems.

Re:just use netbsd already

[TheRaven64]

Why does openbsd exist again? Oh yeah, because Theo couldn't get his sparc patches accepted by the port maintainer. It's really odd that Theo has those emails up on his web site; they're not particularly flattering.

No. That may have been why OpenBSD was created (hey, we've all got egos, right?) but if that were the only reason it would not have existed for very long. OpenBSD concentrates totally on security, at the expense of adding flashy features, resulting in a very secure OS.

To 90% of us, this is entirely pointless, since something like Linux (or even windows) is 'secure enough', but to those who actually have serious security needs OpenBSD is a godsend. By the same token NetBSD is pointless, since everyone uses x86, right? The 'One Size Fits All' OS is a myth.

Re:NTFS is hardly crap.

[evilviper]

NTFS is a modern, mature, stable, fully journalled file system.

All technically true, but that's the effect if you are so incredibly vague.

NTFS is slow... very slow when compared to other "modern" filesystems. It is a journaled fs, yet a chkdsk takes quite a long time.

Few people really know what they're talking about when they discuss NTFS.

Can't speak for those "few people", but I do know what I'm talking about.

Did you know it supports hard linking

Yes, it has a very nasty and clumsy method that allows it to create links.

Did you know it can encrypt and decrypt files on the fly for instant access?

Yes I did, but just about every filesystem on the planet is decent enough that encryption can be layered on-top of it without any problem.

No one can boot Knoppix and overwrite your SAM

Would you like to bet on that??? Up to about Windows 2000 SP2, I have booted up with a Linux disc, changed the Admin password, edited the registry, etc. Besides that, even if Microsoft had done their job adequately (which they haven't), the value of that feature is questionable. Also note that other OSes have better forms of that feature, that aren't problematic, and don't have the limitations.

Anyway, leave it to Slashdot to find some jerk who says NTFS is crap because it's a Microsoft product.

The wording of most of your post sounds like it was pulled directly from a press release ("NTFS is a modern, mature, stable, fully journalled file system. It's got POSIX compliance, and it's got room built in for improvement."), and you say I'm biased? Give me a break. It sounds like you are in support of NTFS just BECAUSE it is a Microsoft product.

I call shenagins on you.

Re:NTFS is hardly crap.

[irgu]

unlike reiser, ext3, and UFS2, it's proven and widely deployed...

--Oh, be quiet. I bet there are more systems out there running reiserfs and ext3 than ntfs. I can say for a fact that you are spreading FUD

Let's see, over 30% of OS's are XP. Most with NTFS. Forget now for W2k and older NT's that have also NTFS as default. That's about 200-300 million computers using minimum one NTFS.

There are couple of millions Linux user, lets say max 10 million that's an overestimate based on most reasonable surveys. They are using different filesystems (ext2, ext3, jfs, reiserfs, xfs).

What number is bigger 200+ million or 10- million? So after all who is spreading FUD? Please try to get your facts right and not to make Linux users look completely ignorants.