Talk:Unix File System

message: The article has a link to a page that claims that UFS and FFS are different filesystems (in that UFS should refer to the ancient Unix filesystem and FFS refer to the later BSD derivative), but the terminology is not always used this way.  FreeBSD and Solaris (and probably others) both generally settled on calling their FFS filesystems "UFS".  And the article generally describes FFS, not ancient Unix UFS, but the article's intro makes this confusing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.156.253.77 (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFS vs FFS 

message: I'm studying up for my CompTIA A+ exam, and they had "UFS" defined as "Universal File System", not "Unix File System", likely due to the fact that it covers much more than just Unix? Or is that just errata in my study materials? —This unsigned comment was added by 67.38.227.182 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-03 21:19:18 UTC.
:It's a question of context.  Apparently there's a "Universal File System" in NetWare: .
:There's also a site that claims that "UFS" in the UNIX sense stands for Universal File system -  - but they're wrong. Guy Harris 21:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal File System vs. Unix File System 

message: AFAIK support for UFS has been removed from OSX. Can someone confirm this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oneiros (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 February 2006.
: It is still as of 10.4.4.
: Please sign messages.
: —Claunia 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFS still in OSX? 

message: I think Linux 2.6.20 has read/write UFS2 support. Source: http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.21 . --Ysangkok 19:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see here. --Ysangkok 22:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is usually not enabled in distribution kernels (nor even read-only).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.147.164 (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux and UFS 

message: Is the here mentioned block to the Unix File System what a cluster is to FAT? --Abdull (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, sort of.  UFS also has fragments for short files which reduces the impact of Internal Fragmentation.  FAT doesn't have that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.147.164 (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block = Cluster 

message: Why is the infobox empty? TMC1221 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   Guy Harris (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty infobox 

message: How come there are no UFS1 or UFS2 in the history section, whereas those appear elsewhere in the article ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Believe me, if I had the slightest idea what a superblock (or even a block) was, I’d start at least a stub! I deliberately added a red link to encourage article creation, per WP:RED, which is common editing practice. Why did you think that should be reverted? — Gorthian (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superblock red link