> Windows really need a package manager. I feel like you only have this mindset because that's what you're used to, coming from the 'nix world. I came from the

> Windows really need a package manager. I feel like you only have this mindset because that's what you're used to, coming from the 'nix world. I came from the Windows world, and not even once have I wished that there was a package manager for Windows. In fact I think it's safe to say I've hated dealing with pretty much every package manager I've ever touched, with possibly the sole exception being pacman. > NTFS is getting old and it is very slow if you have a lot of small files. "Old"? So what? That means it's robust and well-tested with lots of tools designed for it. It's not a Javascript framework. And 2 seconds of benchmarking on FAT32, exFAT, or whatever other file system you want would easily demonstrate that the performance difference has nothing to do with NTFS. NTFS is fantastic; I'd take it over extwhatever any day. It doesn't deal with small files quickly simply because Windows and its performance trade-offs weren't designed around programs dealing with lots of tiny files individually. Yeah it sucks, and I wish it was better just like I wish ext was better in other ways, but it's not really surprising; you're trying to program on Windows with a 'nix mentality, so of course you'll hit an impedance mismatch. It's like going from Windows to Linux and complaining that you need to drop into the terminal all the time (or the reverse direction for that matter). It sucks, but the tool just wasn't designed to be used that way.