On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 04:08:29PM -0400, Jesse Guardiani wrote: > Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that anyone should > write another abstraction layer and then port UFS to it > and force everyone to use this slower version of the UFS > filesystem by default. I'm simply suggesting that it might > be useful (for things like portable devices or dual boot > machines) to be capable of using a slightly slower filesystem > that can be compiled as a loadable kernel module on multiple > architectures and operating systems. > > I'd personally take the speed hit gladly if I *knew* that > I could put a version of FreeBSD's GBDE encrypted filesystem > on my 32gig 2.5" external USB 2.0/firewire hard disk and > read/write it successfully under Windows, MacOSX, Linux, > FreeBSD, etc... > > FAT32 does this already, but without the encryption, and > without the reliability, scalability, speed, or durability > of a real modern filesystem. I can't even really fsck FAT32 > from FreeBSD, much less defrag it. If we had HFS+ in the base it would do most of that other then the encryption which would require a port of GBDE (though porting all of GEOM isn't the only way to do that). I've got a friend who uses HFS+ as his PC/Mac compatability FS because it sucks less then FAT and there are decent third party drivers for Windows. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:54 UTC