| 1 |
On Sunday 30 November 2008 11:53:10 Daniel Iliev wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:45:40 +0000 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > No, and nor should they. Each filesystem implementing its own |
| 6 |
> > encryption layer would be a nightmare. A separate encryption layer on |
| 7 |
> > which you create any filesystem you like is much more sensible. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> It's true for Linux and any other kernel designed to work with many |
| 10 |
> implementations of "the same" thing (FS in this case). MS doesn't care |
| 11 |
> about many file systems, but just their own, therefore they don't |
| 12 |
> face this problem. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
True, MS will not face this problem. We will. In common with what we have to |
| 15 |
do with everything else MS makes. Please don't give them any more clever |
| 16 |
ideas... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives