Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux.misc:28441 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3885 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!news.widomaker.com!escape!shendrix From: shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) Subject: Re: LINUX SUCKS!!!! Organization: HNN UNIX Network Message-ID: <1994Oct30.202117.19741@escape.widomaker.com> References: <085334Z20101994@anon.penet.fi> <385viv$8r4@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> <CHRISB.94Oct26173446@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> <38mj72$a82@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <1994Oct28.041604.589@escape.widomaker.com> <38up48INN1o5e@rs1.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 20:21:17 GMT Lines: 70 se@FileServ1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE (Stefan Esser) writes: >In article <1994Oct28.041604.589@escape.widomaker.com>, shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) writes: >|> If it does say BSD... it's not Linux! And... >|> >|> * it will crash more and worse >|> * it's file systems will be slower >|> * it will have less support >|> * it will have you as a user I have been told already I should have put smiley's all around that. It was just a parody of the guy's post. It was never meant to be taken seriously and I'm sorry if you took it that way. When I looked at the post and my reply it was obvious to me that it was a parody and didn't think I needed to add smiley's. >Well, seems you ignore the fact, that >one of the biggest FTP-Archives in the >INTERNET runs a free BSD, with uptimes >of several months between shutdowns, that >are only required to allow installing >another SCSI controller ... (it has got >its fourth SCSI controllers recently). >The filesystem is one of the parts, where >BSD is far more advanced than Linux, in >both speed and robustness (nobody in their >right mind would use the option to switch >off synchronous metadata updates under BSD, >since this might void your filesystem in >case of a crash, as is the default under >Linux). I have to reply to this... I ran BSD for awhile and it's filesystem was slower by a good margin that Linux. Most of the people I know that have run both say the same. Not always much difference but it's noticeable. My system has crashed many times as a result of tinkering and the area's frequent power failures. I don't lose data. I know there are some technical points regarding ext2fs that need improvement but in actual practise it's quite solid. I keep hearing that ext2fs is not robust. Fine. Given the fact that it has been rock solid for me and many others for a long, long time I can't wait till it does get robust because then it'll be really great. >If you want to discuss filesystem features >and pros and cons, feel free to do so. But >please first try to understand what the BSD >FFS does to combine performance, reliability >and economy of disk space use (ie. fragments). From what I know of ext2fs it has much the same goals and I know from experience that it does a real good job meeting them. >Please get your facts right before posting, >since there might be readers of these >newsgroups who might be lead to believe >the nonsense you wrote ... Like I said, I should have made it more obvious that I was doing a parody of the post. You need to get your facts straight about ext2fs. You imply it is not reliable and that is far from true. -- csh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- shendrix@escape.widomaker.com | Linux... that's it for the moment -----------------------------------+