Slashdot Mirror
ext3fs in Linus' Kernel Tree
peloy writes: "According to Linus' changelog for Linux 2.4.15pre2, the long waited ext3fs, the sucessor of ext2 with jounaling capabilities, has finally made its way into the official kernel tree. I have never tried ext3fs but it looks that now that it is "blessed" by Linus I'll be upgrading my old and trusty ext2fs partitions soon."
Present company excluded, of course.
Wait, you're telling us that we should use Windows, and we're the ones who are brainwashed?
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Let's have a close look at the costs involved when running a Linux system.
An important factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.
According to Linux advocates, an alternative to EXT2FS would be ReiserFS. Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data).
The other proposed 'solution', EXT3FS, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient EXT2FS file system remain in EXT3FS, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'. This is interesting, considering that the DOS heritage in the Windows 9x/ME series was considered a very bad thing by the Linux community, even though it provided what could be called one of the best examples of compatibility, ever. When it's about Linux, compatibility constraints don't seem to be that much of a problem for Linux advocates.
Back to Linux' cost. Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.
watch a video
play an mp3
install your os
in 1 hour....
god damnit I swear to fucking god make some fucking sense. Why the fuck are you trying to salvage a worthless shithole of an os?
Tell ya what... You're a linux smart guy if you're defending this. Spend two hours of your pay and buy a good OS. You're worse than trying to convert a christian to the truth.
Ok, this is great. Now lets gets a similar journaling file system for FreeBSD, that would really be something.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
Microsoft claimed they got rid of DOS, but look at the C:\ on any Windows 2000 machine and you see io.sys and msdos.sys. Removing these files means not booting. Some famous DOS attacks (like the file:/// thing) which are based on problems in these files affect Windows 2000.
Worse, try deleting these files and see what it gets you. Then try to do a repair install... oh my. They aren't put back... muahahahaha!
io.sys + msdos.sys + command.com = msdos. So it is clear two thirds of the msdos base are not only still there, but also are very important to Windows 2000. When you consider that cmd.exe is related to command.com, well... Yes the kernel of win2k is based on NT rather than dos, but there are still some vestiges of dos there, including old code and old bugs.