Switch From Windows to Linux

SmokeRngs said:
You mean signs such as firing the whole QA team for Windows? How about all the talk about a new filesystem since at least XP which still hasn't really manifested? Maybe the fact that what new filesystem they did come up with they had to pull from Win10 because it was a dumpster fire? The fact that MS seems to ignore so many of the bug reports and issues pointed out by those not even being paid to test the OS. Almost every single patch breaking something and even reverting previous updates which fixed things. Each major update causing widespread problems across a number of different systems. Effectively dropping the "agile" system of frequent updates because they would break more than they fixed and introduced even more problems into the mix. "Major" updates which bring little more than new "features" absolutely no one wanted or asked for. The fact they still haven't been able to deprecate the Control Panel even years after releasing the Settings panel. Continually porting more and more of their own software to Linux.

Every single one of these things points a specific direction. You don't fire your QA team and continually remove resources away from a project your are actively trying to develop and expand. Practically every single decision the CEO of Microsoft has made since he started has been to move away from the OS business. He's seen a lot more money to be made in other areas and very likely understands that Windows is doomed no matter what. It's a badly aged pile of code no one is capable of properly understanding or working on which sucks up money and resources for no good reason.

I'm not the one indulging in wishful thinking. I can point to the choices and decisions made by the CEO of Microsoft to indicate the direction of Windows as an OS. If you're interpreting his actions and decisions differently I'd love to see your explanations and interpretations of them and the logic behind your reasoning.
Click to expand...

LOL! :D

Or how most all hardware and software produced is Windows first and sometimes Windows only. Or how the OS is predominately used in internal corporate and small business networks. Or how Windows is all you see sold on laptops and desktops unless you special order.

Or how all PC games are made for Windows, including Steam games.
 
Last edited:
ManofGod said:
LOL! :D

Or how most all hardware and software produced is Windows first and sometimes Windows only. Or how the OS is predominately used in internal corporate and small business networks. Or how Windows is all you see sold on laptops and desktops unless you special order.

Or how all PC games are made for Windows, including Steam games.
Click to expand...
Well, except chromeos and android (and ubuntu if you count dell). Also, quite a few games were made specifically for Linux/BSD, although most were noncommercial, and not nearly as many as Windows games.
 
ManofGod said:
LOL! :D

Or how most all hardware and software produced is Windows first and sometimes Windows only. Or how the OS is predominately used in internal corporate and small business networks. Or how Windows is all you see sold on laptops and desktops unless you special order.

Or how all PC games are made for Windows, including Steam games.
Click to expand...

Its not like MS has never changed their kernel and kept their software libraries. The Windows NT kernel was not the first MS operating system kernel. lol Software from earlier versions of windows still run on it.

The kernel IS NOT WHAT RUNS SOFTWARE, its a traffic cop.

The kernel talks to the hardware.

I am not sure you really understand what a kernel is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(operating_system)
" The kernel is a computer program that is the core of a computer's operating system, with complete control over everything in the system.[1] The kernel facilitates interactions between hardware and software components. On most systems, it is one of the first programs loaded on start-up (after the bootloader). It handles the rest of start-up as well as input/output requests from software, translating them into data-processing instructions for the central processing unit. It handles memory and peripherals like keyboards, monitors, printers, and speakers.

220px-Kernel_Layout.svg.png

A kernel connects the application software to the hardware of a computer.
The critical code of the kernel is usually loaded into a separate area of memory, which is protected from access by application programs or other, less critical parts of the operating system. The kernel performs its tasks, such as running processes, managing hardware devices such as the hard disk, and handling interrupts, in this protected kernel space. In contrast, application programs like browsers, word processors, or audio or video players use a separate area of memory, user space. This separation prevents user data and kernel data from interfering with each other and causing instability and slowness,[1] as well as preventing malfunctioning application programs from crashing the entire operating system. "

You see that nice little graphic from wiki. The Application layer.... things like C++/WinRT and Win32 are what run software. MS can run their application frameworks on whatever the fuck they want. Yes they have been using the NT kernel for 26 years. There is nothing technical stopping them from swapping out the windows NT kernel for a Unix like BSD kernel like Apple, or running a stock or custom version of the Linux kernel. NO END USER software communicates directly with the kernel. Well ok to be fair MS messy microkernel design does allow user space software to hook into kernel stuff at times... which is why its the least secure OS on the planet. But anyway point is yes you can swap out the kernel of any OS... people use Linux DEs on BSD distros and run Linux software on Unix distros when they have the software frameworks to run them.

I don't think anyone is suggesting MS is going to dump their Application layers (outside of win32 which they want to kill... no denying that fact). In fact anyone with a half a brain can see that they have been doing the work to move their newer preferred application layers to Linux. .net is already 100% Linux operational and has been for awhile. C++/WinRT is not on Linux but they have moved it to a MIT licence (yes its open source) and have the developer who designed WinRT working on xlang a compiler they have stated has a goal of being able to cross compile WINDOWS software.

So for the 100th time your assertion that "windows" software won't run on a Linux kernel version of windows is wrong. Yes if they want they can even include a version of win32. Software shouldn't no the difference it never directly talks to the kernel.
 
ManofGod said:
Or how most all hardware and software produced is Windows first and sometimes Windows only.
Click to expand...
Not entirely true. Hardware is typically Windows first, yes, but many companies do release cross-platform devices that work on Mac and Linux (though I'll admit the drivers aren't updated as often).

Furthermore, volunteers in the community can create drivers, like for a graphics tablet I bought recently (for $30), there was an open-source project I found that added their own support for Linux.

ManofGod said:
Or how the OS is predominately used in internal corporate and small business networks. Or how Windows is all you see sold on laptops and desktops unless you special order.
Click to expand...
Correct. Most business computers are Windows, probably out of inertia and because training all the staff to use Linux would be too much of a burden. However, network back-ends are primarily Linux even if the client PCs are Windows.

Also, many designers and artists use OS X, and it's arguable that is basically UNIX. Not dissimilar to what we are suggesting Microsoft might do.

ManofGod said:
Or how all PC games are made for Windows, including Steam games.
Click to expand...
This is true to an extent, but there are a good amount of cross-platform titles on Steam. I have a pretty extensive library, and about 1/4 (25%) are Linux compatible.

Of my games, 245 out of 972 work on Linux natively (not counting Proton/Steam Play).

If we consider Steam Play, about 400 games in my library have bronze or better (according to ProtonDB), so a little less than half the games (maybe more can work with Lutris, or they work but are not listed on ProtonDB).

Honestly, it's not that bad, there are plenty of good games to keep me busy. For the other games that don't work, I can stream from my second PC (Windows 10) so I'm not missing out on anything.
 
ManofGod said:
LOL! :D

Or how most all hardware and software produced is Windows first and sometimes Windows only. Or how the OS is predominately used in internal corporate and small business networks. Or how Windows is all you see sold on laptops and desktops unless you special order.

Or how all PC games are made for Windows, including Steam games.
Click to expand...
True, but that doesn't mean it is a good OS. It just means it was adopted first. Then they twisted it into a spyware/virus mess. Then to make it worse, they took away quite a few features/choices in what the OS does, so now you have to hack it just to get it the way you want. Forced stuff.

All this fighting about which is best. Windows is not even close, but like I said, it is the one that stuff is made for since it was first adopted.
Then they "forced" people to use it by paying business's to make their software windows/windows 10 only. Then they gave 10 away for free and it still was super slow to be adopted.
There is a reason for that and they just can't seem to get it through their heads.
 
ChadD Right. There is no reason Windows software couldn't run on a Linux kernel, given the proper compatibility layers.

Mostly any proper software would be developed against an API. An API (on Windows) typically runs in a DLL, so all they would have to do is port the DLL to run on Linux exposing the same function calls, and everything would be transparent to the user.

I guess this is what WINE does, but Microsoft could produce a much better version of WINE if they ported it themselves. They definitely wouldn't drop support for Win32 altogether without some compatibility mode, but this is well within their power to make.

Honestly, it looks more and more likely they will do this and it's honestly a great idea if done right.
 
cybereality said:
ChadD Right. There is no reason Windows software couldn't run on a Linux kernel, given the proper compatibility layers.

Mostly any proper software would be developed against an API. An API (on Windows) typically runs in a DLL, so all they would have to do is port the DLL to run on Linux exposing the same function calls, and everything would be transparent to the user.

I guess this is what WINE does, but Microsoft could produce a much better version of WINE if they ported it themselves. They definitely wouldn't drop support for Win32 altogether without some compatibility mode, but this is well within their power to make.

Honestly, it looks more and more likely they will do this and it's honestly a great idea if done right.
Click to expand...

And why the hell would Microsoft do that? They have no reason whatsoever to give up what is theirs and what they have developed over the years. Also, using Windows software on Linux is most definitely an issue, since Linux is not designed by default to use Windows software or hardware. MS has zero reason to develop WINE in any fashion. Win32 is going nowhere and will be not run is some slow ass compatibility mode. Chad is wrong.
 
Hagrid said:
True, but that doesn't mean it is a good OS. It just means it was adopted first. Then they twisted it into a spyware/virus mess. Then to make it worse, they took away quite a few features/choices in what the OS does, so now you have to hack it just to get it the way you want. Forced stuff.

All this fighting about which is best. Windows is not even close, but like I said, it is the one that stuff is made for since it was first adopted.
Then they "forced" people to use it by paying business's to make their software windows/windows 10 only. Then they gave 10 away for free and it still was super slow to be adopted.
There is a reason for that and they just can't seem to get it through their heads.
Click to expand...

Took less than 5 minutes to install Windows from a booting off the usb flash drive to a usable desktop. This is on a brand new computer without even the absolute fastest hardware. Windows is a good OS that does what it should do and if you do not like it, use Linux or Mac OS, choice is good.
 
Pi-hole, install it on your smallest computer and shove it in a closet

Auer said:
Linux never came even remotely close to delivering for photographers so besides just tinkering with it on older hardware I have hanging around I never found any use for it.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Auer
like this
ManofGod said:
And why the hell would Microsoft do that? They have no reason whatsoever to give up what is theirs and what they have developed over the years. Also, using Windows software on Linux is most definitely an issue, since Linux is not designed by default to use Windows software or hardware. MS has zero reason to develop WINE in any fashion. Win32 is going nowhere and will be not run is some slow ass compatibility mode. Chad is wrong.
Click to expand...

You haven't been paying much attention though. MS has done little kernel work in YEARS. The NT kernel is very much unchanged from when it launched 26 years back. As a micro kernel there isn't much to do either. Their scheduler mostly blows... hence software developers trying to stupid things like control threads themselves. (the other Linux thread going on right now about game developers complaining about amazons Linux based streaming is case in point. No OS should be allowing user land software to do that EVER wth is the point of a scheduler is you have a game developer trying to bypass it) The stuff outside their micro kernel that MS would dump would be basically MS supplied drivers. (you know the ones that work but suck... not counting the basic mouse driver anyway I guess)... anyway the biggest kernel component beyond the input output is the File system. MS has have issues trying to replace NTFS for a long time now... they seem to be stuck with it, and as file systems go its not very good.

Switching to a Linux kernel.... gives them these pros;
- get rid of thousands of MS OS developers. Focus on the DE... and possibly a file system group. They already have kernel development group... MS already uses custom Linux kernels all over the place, in their cloud offerings (no not VMs... MS has lots of Linux running servers for specific services).
- No longer have to deal with Driver issues... and driver certification programs ect. All drivers move to the Linux kernel team... MS saves money, and hey we all win cause Linus don't play no crap drivers.
- MS moves their UI to Windows DE... which is not only used by their own "windows" customer and small business sales. It also can be sold as JUST a DE to companies running say Red Hat. Think about it... MS has been building relationships with RedHat Suse Ubuntu. Why do you think they are doing that ? Once windows is just a DE. Red Hat Suse and Ubuntu can sell Complete red hat systems... where terminals and workstations run Red Hat with Windows DE. MS instantly gets their UI (and potential customer tracking stuff... Edge browser ect ect) on basically every workstation in the world. Right now they are loosing that bit by bit... and they will loose it completely if they don't adapt. Pulling in the biggest Linux commercial providers basically ends the Linux threat.

I'm not going to go on but there are plenty of other ways switching to a Linux kernel benefits MS. But the main one is that last point I mentioned. MS server has been loosing ground very quickly. Windows server is essentially dead at this point and its really not savable. MS best bet is to embrace fully the Linux server... selling tools and services for those servers. (which they are all ready doing now offering SQL for Linux ect) The next step to ensure those services are EVERYWHERE. Is to offer companies the ability to go 100% linux from server to workstations and dumb terminal while actually still running windows on them.
 
ChadD said:
You haven't been paying much attention though. MS has done little kernel work in YEARS. The NT kernel is very much unchanged from when it launched 26 years back. As a micro kernel there isn't much to do either. Their scheduler mostly blows... hence software developers trying to stupid things like control threads themselves. (the other Linux thread going on right now about game developers complaining about amazons Linux based streaming is case in point. No OS should be allowing user land software to do that EVER wth is the point of a scheduler is you have a game developer trying to bypass it) The stuff outside their micro kernel that MS would dump would be basically MS supplied drivers. (you know the ones that work but suck... not counting the basic mouse driver anyway I guess)... anyway the biggest kernel component beyond the input output is the File system. MS has have issues trying to replace NTFS for a long time now... they seem to be stuck with it, and as file systems go its not very good.
Click to expand...

Their scheduler does suck, but it's not like they haven't tried to improve it. I recall it being updated at least once since Ryzen first came out to make it play nicer with AMD CPUs. I doubt it's going to suck forever.

I've seen NTFS come up a few times in this thread and I'm trying to wrap my head around why it even matters. What's so crap about it? Is there any reason average home users should care at all what file system they're using? When I'm using Linux I make sure to pick F2FS over ext4 since it's there, but I don't find myself crying about having to use NTFS when I'm on Windows.
 
ManOfGod, you really need to research how operating systems work as well as just how much Microsoft are making use of Linux now - A lot of the work needed to switch the consumer variant of Windows over to the Linux kernel is already done regarding the Azure platform.

The NT kernel/NTFS file system is an aging mess. The simple need to reboot multiple times to apply updates is stuck in the early 2000's, possibly older if you consider Windows as an OS and not just as a kernel. It makes absolutely no sense for Microsoft to devote resources to a ground up rewrite of the NT kernel and it's evident they aren't going to as their interest in Windows as an OS is waning, the most logical scenario is to use the Linux kernel and leverage the community - You have to understand, Microsoft are minuscule compared to the massive teams of people all collaborating on the Linux kernel.

Hence the reason Microsoft bought Github and are their biggest contributor. You're in a state of constant denial.
 
ManofGod said:
And why the hell would Microsoft do that? They have no reason whatsoever to give up what is theirs and what they have developed over the years. Also, using Windows software on Linux is most definitely an issue, since Linux is not designed by default to use Windows software or hardware. MS has zero reason to develop WINE in any fashion. Win32 is going nowhere and will be not run is some slow ass compatibility mode. Chad is wrong.
Click to expand...

Compatibility mode?! Windows must also run in some form of compatibility mode then? Should we call Wine 'Windows Is Not an Emulator' - As Windows uses the same API layer for translation.
 
ManofGod said:
Took less than 5 minutes to install Windows from a booting off the usb flash drive to a usable desktop. This is on a brand new computer without even the absolute fastest hardware. Windows is a good OS that does what it should do and if you do not like it, use Linux or Mac OS, choice is good.
Click to expand...
Well since it only took 5 minutes it must be good. Is that your argument? Truly pathetic. I already stated why I have to use windows. Linux is also fast at the same thing when I last used it.
So does that mean it's just as good as well? What if you could load it in less than 5, would you switch then? Hahaha
 
Hagrid said:
Well since it only took 5 minutes it must be good. Is that your argument? Truly pathetic. I already stated why I have to use windows. Linux is also fast at the same thing when I last used it.
So does that mean it's just as good as well? What if you could load it in less than 5, would you switch then? Hahaha
Click to expand...

I said what I said and it is real. Do not like the truth, not my problem. :)

Oh, and the "fact" that you have to use it does not matter to me. Windows is a good OS but, if you do not like it, use something else or just deal with it, it is not like a big difficulty
 
Last edited:
ManofGod said:
I said what I said and it is real. Do not like the truth, not my problem. :)
Click to expand...
Can you explain this truth? I must have missed it. Is it because it takes 5 minutes to load the OS? Like I said, maybe Linux can beat that time, so would that mean it's better?

Not your problem? You seem to have quite a few and none of them are related to an OS.......
 
Hagrid said:
Can you explain this truth? I must have missed it. Is it because it takes 5 minutes to load the OS? Like I said, maybe Linux can beat that time, so would that mean it's better?

Not your problem? You seem to have quite a few and none of them are related to an OS.......
Click to expand...

Stick both operating systems on a spinner and watch Linux gain the upper hand...

And before ManOfGod states no one uses spinners anymore: The fact is most plebs do (not calling anyone here a pleb).

And before ManOfGod tries to claim Windows is 'optimized' for SSD's, let me highlight that such a claim is ridiculous unless you're simply talking about TRIM which is supported by both Windows and Linux.

Ext4 is superior to NTFS.
 
Hagrid said:
Can you explain this truth? I must have missed it. Is it because it takes 5 minutes to load the OS? Like I said, maybe Linux can beat that time, so would that mean it's better?

Not your problem? You seem to have quite a few and none of them are related to an OS.......
Click to expand...

Ru ro rorge....... :D On no, I have problems...... :D
 
GhostCow said:
Their scheduler does suck, but it's not like they haven't tried to improve it. I recall it being updated at least once since Ryzen first came out to make it play nicer with AMD CPUs. I doubt it's going to suck forever.

I've seen NTFS come up a few times in this thread and I'm trying to wrap my head around why it even matters. What's so crap about it? Is there any reason average home users should care at all what file system they're using? When I'm using Linux I make sure to pick F2FS over ext4 since it's there, but I don't find myself crying about having to use NTFS when I'm on Windows.
Click to expand...

The differences encountered when Microsoft recently updated the scheduler to run better on Ryzen weren't that great in the grand scheme of things. Furthermore, there's still the massive problem of NUMA and the fact that Linux is ~50% faster on NUMA based systems, an area that's unlikely to be resolved by simply updating the Windows scheduler.

When it comes to NTFS vs Ext4, it literally all comes down to fragmentation - NTFS is a fragmented mess. Coupled with the fact that it cannot allow for updating the way Linux file systems do - It's time for NTFS to be retired.

Why would you use F2FS?
 
Windows Update is a disaster. It takes forever, fails half the time, and (even when it works) you have to restart multiple times and disrupt whatever you are trying to do.

There are probably many reasons why it still doesn't work, but NTFS is a big part of that.
 
cybereality said:
Windows Update is a disaster. It takes forever, fails half the time, and (even when it works) you have to restart multiple times and disrupt whatever you are trying to do.

There are probably many reasons why it still doesn't work, but NTFS is a big part of that.
Click to expand...

Forever? It took 10 minutes with a reboot. However, I think I need to install the latest bios for the board, since it did have a graphical error on reboot.
 
cybereality said:
Windows Update is a disaster. It takes forever, fails half the time, and (even when it works) you have to restart multiple times and disrupt whatever you are trying to do.

There are probably many reasons why it still doesn't work, but NTFS is a big part of that.
Click to expand...

Tell me about it! As a tech I deal with that crap multiple times a day...Ugh!
 
ManofGod said:
What, I do not see anything. Also, I said 5 minutes to a usable desktop, which is great, you cannot realistically deny that.
Click to expand...
Well Ubuntu on a Live USB can boot up into a fresh desktop in a few minutes as well. Installation can take longer if you are installing apps and drivers, but it's not more than around 10 minutes.
 
ManofGod said:
Forever? It took 10 minutes with a reboot. However, I think I need to install the latest bios for the board, since it did have a graphical error on reboot.
Click to expand...

Under Linux it takes about 2 mins without a reboot and ten mins is being generous - I've seen it take at least half an hour with massive increases in boot times.
 
ManofGod said:
Forever? It took 10 minutes with a reboot. However, I think I need to install the latest bios for the board, since it did have a graphical error on reboot.
Click to expand...
I've had Windows Update take several hours, and I've also had it fail to the point where I could not update at all and tried everything but had to reinstall Windows fresh.
 
Windows update doesn't work on my laptop, and even if it did it's stuck on 7 because 8 and 10 don't work (won't install, and if it did there are no drivers). That said, it's got a pretty old ssd, and the disk check is triggered at every boot (despite finding zero errors), which may be partially to blame for windows update failing.

Linux works fine when it boots, but boot often fails for unknown reasons. Think it's a combination of poor apu support for that generation and the failing ssd.

It's a pretty capable laptop, just wish it had a bit more horsepower and a fanless cooler so that it'd have more longevity. Not going to replace it until zen3 mobile reviews are out, so I can decide between intel and AMD's latest and greatest.
 
Nobu said:
Windows update doesn't work on my laptop, and even if it did it's stuck on 7 because 8 and 10 don't work (won't install, and if it did there are no drivers). That said, it's got a pretty old ssd, and the disk check is triggered at every boot (despite finding zero errors), which may be partially to blame for windows update failing.

Linux works fine when it boots, but boot often fails for unknown reasons. Think it's a combination of poor apu support for that generation and the failing ssd.

It's a pretty capable laptop, just wish it had a bit more horsepower and a fanless cooler so that it'd have more longevity. Not going to replace it until zen3 mobile reviews are out, so I can decide between intel and AMD's latest and greatest.
Click to expand...

Yeah I installed a 3200g in the new build today. That is why I think I need to update the firmware and hipset drivers and the the latest graphics driver.
 
cybereality said:
I've had Windows Update take several hours, and I've also had it fail to the point where I could not update at all and tried everything but had to reinstall Windows fresh.
Click to expand...

I remember Windows 7 updates not work until a repair install of Windows 7 was done.
 
GhostCow said:
Their scheduler does suck, but it's not like they haven't tried to improve it. I recall it being updated at least once since Ryzen first came out to make it play nicer with AMD CPUs. I doubt it's going to suck forever.

I've seen NTFS come up a few times in this thread and I'm trying to wrap my head around why it even matters. What's so crap about it? Is there any reason average home users should care at all what file system they're using? When I'm using Linux I make sure to pick F2FS over ext4 since it's there, but I don't find myself crying about having to use NTFS when I'm on Windows.
Click to expand...

Well its the only OS that still requires defragmentation for one. Granted we don't care on SSDs anymore, still lots of storage mechanical drives out there. Its also the main reason windows needs to reboot at all to do updates.

As for why MS should care.... I don't know cause their main competition destroys them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_File_System

Snapshots... faster deeper encryption support... Crash protection... Space sharing (showing multiple volumes as one)... transparent compression.... copies that don't use additional disc space.

NTFS isn't the worst file system ever created but its age is showing.
 
GhostCow said:
It's faster than ext4 on SSD according to the benchmarks I've seen
Click to expand...

On desktops or mobile devices? In terms of performance on desktop devices, F2FS and Ext4 trade blows, the thing is: Ext4 is by far the more robust file system on desktop, able to endure crashes and sudden shutdowns better than F2FS.

Interesting though? If you're using F2FS on desktop, you're the first person I know that's doing such a thing.
 
ManofGod said:
I said what I said and it is real. Do not like the truth, not my problem. :)

Oh, and the "fact" that you have to use it does not matter to me. Windows is a good OS but, if you do not like it, use something else or just deal with it, it is not like a big difficulty
Click to expand...

I posted a number of truths earlier. Actual actions, decisions, reactions (or non-reactions as the case may be) and policies made by Microsoft regarding the Windows OS. But you didn't respond to them; at least not in any sort of logical or mature manner. Every one of those things I posted is real and indicates the direction Microsoft have been going with regards to Windows. Those are truths and your problem. But you ignore it all. Why is that?

I asked you to lay out your response to those items and your thinking behind them. I have done so in this thread regarding my observations but you have not. Would you please explain why?
 
SmokeRngs said:
I posted a number of truths earlier. Actual actions, decisions, reactions (or non-reactions as the case may be) and policies made by Microsoft regarding the Windows OS. But you didn't respond to them; at least not in any sort of logical or mature manner. Every one of those things I posted is real and indicates the direction Microsoft have been going with regards to Windows. Those are truths and your problem. But you ignore it all. Why is that?

I asked you to lay out your response to those items and your thinking behind them. I have done so in this thread regarding my observations but you have not. Would you please explain why?
Click to expand...

So glad I'm not the only one encountering this... ;)
 
Mazzspeed said:
On desktops or mobile devices? In terms of performance on desktop devices, F2FS and Ext4 trade blows, the thing is: Ext4 is by far the more robust file system on desktop, able to endure crashes and sudden shutdowns better than F2FS.

Interesting though? If you're using F2FS on desktop, you're the first person I know that's doing such a thing.
Click to expand...

It's faster on both mobile devices and desktops. I first started using it four years ago and I haven't had any issues during the 6 months or so of that I've actually spent in Linux. Here's the benchmarks I was referring to. In a few cases it's close but overall F2FS seems to be the winner. I'd still stick with ext4 for mission critical servers or something but F2FS seems fine for home use.

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-50-filesystems&num=1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top