defrag

[Wojciech Puchar]

> MS was focused on building a filesytem that could store the outrageous
> ACLs they wanted, and that was non-trival

so - as usually - they quickly implemented OS/2 filesystem (at best, 
assuming no stolen code), and added their bloat then.

performance is never a priority in Microsoft. exactly opposite is true.
High quality of windows will kill Microsoft, few would buy new 
versions then.

> (look at how long it took the
> BSDs to have native file-level ACLs).

because in unix they are not actually needed.

users&groups system is just perfect.

i don't know anyone here that actually use ACL under unix
because he/she needs it.

POSSIBLY it's needed for samba users to allow using this on windoze 
clients.