A journaling file system is a file system that logs changes to a journal (usually a circular log in a dedicated area) before committing them to the main file system. Such file systems are less likely to become corrupted in the event of power failure or system crash.
Linux has been known to be a jerk, but I think I'll trust him on this over you.
More importantly, what happens when dad needs to use the computer? I'd rather let my daughter look at porn than block myself from looking at it as well!
That's straight up wrong. If nothing is written to disk, including the journal, how would the file change to size zero? Read the article again -- the journal *is* written before the data. Usually that's not a problem, but with this particular idiom (which by the way predates linux by a long shot), it's a big'un.
Here's a more likely hypothesis than being accustomed to "sizzle sounds" -- younger folks are more and more likely to be "used" to the song with its mp3 artifacts from their ipods, torrent downloads, etc - and people like what they are used to. Did you know a heroin user starts experiencing profound psychological and physiological effects while they are in the process of preparing to shoot up, with no drugs at all in the system? It's the same thing. In many ways we humans aren't a lot more complicated than Pavlov's dog.
Clearly, there is no more reliable test of network performance than a flash application running inside of a web browser. On machines that are "oh, more or less" identical (I'd really like to know what network card is in them, for example?). Sheesh.
And the question that I want to know the answer to is *why* would linux boot faster with ext4? Is the filesystem layout really that much more optimized for sequential reads? Or is this just a fluke? In absence of any purported explanation, I have to say I'm guessing fluke, much as I'd like to believe ext4 can make that much of a difference.
I'm not so sure. When I lived in virginia I had internet through a company called cox communications, and they had essentially a 3 strike policy. Every time the RIAA or whomever called them, they passed along a note to you saying you're illegally sharing x, cut that out or else we'll cut off your service. I could continue on my merry way downloading & uploading other legal and illegal content unmolested. As to whether this policy is now actually the RIAA's, that's anyone's guess. But they're not going to cut off your ability to upload linux ISOs, mmkay?
That's a facile analogy. If England were to expand its borders in to France, the entire continent would rally to the French side. If they were to annex Sealand tomorrow (or if they have today), no one would blink. To suggest otherwise is idiocy. The instant Sealand has something Britain wants, it will cease to exist. It's a bloody slab of concrete after all, the "native" population of which were British citizens before their "partiarch" went a bit batty.
Don't get me wrong, I wish I could make up my own laws, pronounce myself king, and run my own "country". But I recognize the instant I rocked the boat too much, that would be the end of it. And I have no problem with what Sealand is doing. But to suggest Britain can't put it out of business at any moment they want is madness. The deliver the mails there. They have the cables that connect to Sealand. Get your head out of the clouds.
Let's get this straight, an article about the new version of Nexenta (2.0alpha - you did RTFA, right?) comes out, and you complain that nexenta hasn't been updated;-) ? The reason for the delay is nexenta tracks ubuntu's long term releases.
I agree with you on Nexenta's irrelevance, though. Nexenta just isn't worth it unless you need untrained monkeys to administer the thing.
That's not good for either portability, long-term maintenance or, especially, security. Nasty things can be found in BLOBs, both there on purpose and by accident. What can't happen, though, is for these nasties to be fixed or removed. For that you need the source and no substitute will do.
Go read Ken's article again. The point is that even the source is not enough. Open source is necessary but not sufficient to truly understand what code will do.
Sorta true. The problem is many RAID controllers treat a single error on a drive as being equivalent to a dead drive. Granted the article is sensationalistic gibberish, but there is a grain of truth in it.
Doing that might actually increase the chance of a catastrophic failure. If you are replacing drives, say, twice as often, you have twice as much time that the array is in a degraded state and an unrecoverable error can happen and hose the whole thing.
Slashdot Mirror
According to whom?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journaling_file_system
A journaling file system is a file system that logs changes to a journal (usually a circular log in a dedicated area) before committing them to the main file system. Such file systems are less likely to become corrupted in the event of power failure or system crash.
Linux has been known to be a jerk, but I think I'll trust him on this over you.
oh, i wish i had mod points for +1 insightful.
All due respect, I'm pretty sure you and I, and 99.9% of slashdot, is not in the demographic they are targeting (or trying to target).
More importantly, what happens when dad needs to use the computer? I'd rather let my daughter look at porn than block myself from looking at it as well!
Solid parenting.
Microsoft still needs to explain why it just cannot say that folks won't violate the GPL if they license FAT under its terms.
Just what we need... Microsoft offering legal opinions about GPL enforcement.
That's straight up wrong. If nothing is written to disk, including the journal, how would the file change to size zero? Read the article again -- the journal *is* written before the data. Usually that's not a problem, but with this particular idiom (which by the way predates linux by a long shot), it's a big'un.
Here's a more likely hypothesis than being accustomed to "sizzle sounds" -- younger folks are more and more likely to be "used" to the song with its mp3 artifacts from their ipods, torrent downloads, etc - and people like what they are used to. Did you know a heroin user starts experiencing profound psychological and physiological effects while they are in the process of preparing to shoot up, with no drugs at all in the system? It's the same thing. In many ways we humans aren't a lot more complicated than Pavlov's dog.
Stability, stability, stability, stability.
The point is to bring attention to this class of false advertising, not to insult that particular TV as being an energy hog.
Also, gimme a new bicycle. I mean seriously, good luck with all that.
Clearly, there is no more reliable test of network performance than a flash application running inside of a web browser. On machines that are "oh, more or less" identical (I'd really like to know what network card is in them, for example?). Sheesh.
And the question that I want to know the answer to is *why* would linux boot faster with ext4? Is the filesystem layout really that much more optimized for sequential reads? Or is this just a fluke? In absence of any purported explanation, I have to say I'm guessing fluke, much as I'd like to believe ext4 can make that much of a difference.
Watching divx content really is enough to make performance matter -- an atom, for example, just can't keep up compared to a "fuller" CPU.
I'm not so sure. When I lived in virginia I had internet through a company called cox communications, and they had essentially a 3 strike policy. Every time the RIAA or whomever called them, they passed along a note to you saying you're illegally sharing x, cut that out or else we'll cut off your service. I could continue on my merry way downloading & uploading other legal and illegal content unmolested. As to whether this policy is now actually the RIAA's, that's anyone's guess. But they're not going to cut off your ability to upload linux ISOs, mmkay?
Better URL for the IE/flash NX-disabling vulnerability:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/04/08/ie8-security-part-I_3A00_-dep-nx-memory-protection.aspx
That's a facile analogy. If England were to expand its borders in to France, the entire continent would rally to the French side. If they were to annex Sealand tomorrow (or if they have today), no one would blink. To suggest otherwise is idiocy. The instant Sealand has something Britain wants, it will cease to exist. It's a bloody slab of concrete after all, the "native" population of which were British citizens before their "partiarch" went a bit batty.
Don't get me wrong, I wish I could make up my own laws, pronounce myself king, and run my own "country". But I recognize the instant I rocked the boat too much, that would be the end of it. And I have no problem with what Sealand is doing. But to suggest Britain can't put it out of business at any moment they want is madness. The deliver the mails there. They have the cables that connect to Sealand. Get your head out of the clouds.
Love,
Dirty Hippie.
Let's get this straight, an article about the new version of Nexenta (2.0alpha - you did RTFA, right?) comes out, and you complain that nexenta hasn't been updated ;-) ? The reason for the delay is nexenta tracks ubuntu's long term releases.
I agree with you on Nexenta's irrelevance, though. Nexenta just isn't worth it unless you need untrained monkeys to administer the thing.
That's not good for either portability, long-term maintenance or, especially, security. Nasty things can be found in BLOBs, both there on purpose and by accident. What can't happen, though, is for these nasties to be fixed or removed. For that you need the source and no substitute will do.
Go read Ken's article again. The point is that even the source is not enough. Open source is necessary but not sufficient to truly understand what code will do.
How about good ol' strings(1)?
haha, i have the same problem :-)
seriously. horrid.
i'd never seen that one. awesome.
Psth. n00b. I have a quint-boot laptop - opensolaris, winxp, osx, linux, freebsd. iwin kthxbai.
Sorta true. The problem is many RAID controllers treat a single error on a drive as being equivalent to a dead drive. Granted the article is sensationalistic gibberish, but there is a grain of truth in it.
Doing that might actually increase the chance of a catastrophic failure. If you are replacing drives, say, twice as often, you have twice as much time that the array is in a degraded state and an unrecoverable error can happen and hose the whole thing.