Slashdot Mirror
Samba's Jeremy Allison On Linux's Future
TRNick writes "Jeremy Allison talks Ubuntu, why he loves Gnome, and the trials and tribulations of open source development in a wide-ranging interview on TechRadar."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
(And over OSX, since I prefer a start menu to a dock)
Well just for extended information (I am not trying to make you change your choice) the reason why OS X doesn't have a start button is because of the way that files are organized are different then on Linux and Windows. /usr/bin directory filled with application some are X Based (which really should be in /usr/bin/X11 or /usr/X11/bin) but still you have alot of little utilities mixed in your application.
For the most part application have everything it needs inside its own folder and when you see that application icon it is actually a folder that automatically runs the application within it. So except for going to the start menu you can just enter the Application Directory and choose your application much easier then with Linux and Windows (for that method). Where in windows you have a Program Folder directory filled with exe files that may or may not lead to to you running your application, that you want. Or Linux
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Why should I have to type "apt-get"?
You don't. Just go into the main menu and pick "Applications..." or whatever the menu option is. It pops up a simple, user-friendly interface for installing any major applications you'd be interested in, ordered by category (the same categories as present in the main menu, actually).
Of course, if you want to get a little more advanced, you can always pop up Synaptic. But there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that an average user needs to run apt-get on the command-line.
??
1- NFS performance is amazing. It isn't the protocol you have performance problems with it is the transport (layer 1 or layer 2). The protocol in a transport might make a couple % points difference, and that even rarely.
The transport is where it is at. Comparing gigabit with FC is a losing battle for NFS, but compare 10G with FC (even 8G FC) and you have NFS at the top of the performance heap right now for mass storage, only iSCSI is in the same ballpark- but it is also on... 10G ethernet. iSCSI also cannot do simultaneous reads/writes like POSIX compliant NFS can. Direct attach is miserable because you invest loads in disk and can only use it on one server. What if you want to share that data around? Replicate? Islands of storage?
2) use automounter. Seriously, this hasn't been a problem for 5-10 years. Automounter, hostnames, don't use IP addresses (better if you can reverse the addresses).
You obviously haven't maintained NFS either recently or in a large environment.
NFSv4 does things your post doesn't even mention (security and ACL improvements, some performance in some cases).