How is slate-ntfs different from NTFS-3g and the NTFS 3.1 kernel implementation?
-First of all, slate has a fuller VFS implementation, allowing Steam to see drivers natively. This means that Steam can see drivers directly, without direct intervention.
-User API: comes with an API to easily get driver manufacturer. Has Python, C and Rust support.
-Rust driver, C adapter: can be used with kernels as old as 5.15 while preserving memory safety.
-This code also runs on ARM64 (not fully tested)!
I don’t think the author is saying “YESSS… Use NTFS”. Some people are stuck with NTFS partitions though, because they need to share with windows Machines or other reasons.
And if you are, its not a bad thing to have better options.
Would I format my second NVME to NTFS and use this? Nope… But, if you’re stuck with NTFS (or just not fully committed to Linux), transition technologies like this can help.
I look forward to the day that the last NTFS, APFS , FAT and HFS+ partitions on the planet are permanently deleted and replaced by better options. But, until that time…
I’m not asking why one would use NTFS.
I’m asking why there’s yet another NTFS driver when there are plenty out there, with the ntfs3g proven robust.
The only way folks have been trying to implement it better is with native kernel code to replace the current buggy one.
I’m asking why anyone would use this thing instead of the ones I mentioned above, and don’t say “because it’s in Rust”.
It has a comparison table if you click the link :)
Again, I have no need though