What are the features that would be wasted by typical UNIX? Extended attributes? Multiple forks for files? I'm pretty sure that Reiser, JFS, and XFS all have those features either implemented or planned.
Sure, sure, you're correct there. And I maintain that most unix-like systems do not put those features to use fully. Right now. It may happen with time, but it's overkill now. The datasheets on XFS are kind of mind-numbing to read, and many, many of the features present on Irix can't be used with Linux.
I'm not advocating that people running linux move to HFS+ or anything,
Egad.:-) Although moving off ext* would be welcome. Unless it's to Reiser3.
I'm not advocating that people running linux move to HFS+ or anything, so it's sort of irrelevant to this discussion, but I think it makes a perfectly fine Unix filesystem for OS X, and I'd be very curious about how it stacks up to the other journaling filesystems listed in the article.
It's certainly gotten much better as a Unix FS than from say, 10.0 and 10.1. I do keep an FFS volume on my machines, mostly for things I build from pkgsrc. The journaling feature was much-needed. I had an iBook with a flaky airport card. Crash. Set it down for thrity minutes to let the fsck finish.
As far as the performance goes, there's really no way to compare as Darwin/OSX doesn't support the myriad FS's linux does, and Linux's HFS+ support isn't very mature. It does raise an interesting potential situation, though.... Because if the HFS+ support improves, it'd make dealing with linux on a macintosh much easier. No more yaboot! Just make two HFS+ partitions, and one linux swap.....
Mmmm....fancy caching to hide performance problems due to dated design. No, the bottom line on soft updates is that they help...some. But you're still dealing with a twenty-five year old filesystem design underneath. When you turn off the speed enhancements, and mount a filesystem like you would when you're doing something important (i.e. mail spools mounted sync), XFS, JFS, and Reiser would totally trounce FFS. No contest.
With FFS you do get a twenty-five year record of reliability, which is why most of the machines I administer run it. But in the grand scheme of things, JFS and XFS have been around a long time now, too (since the mid 80's in AIX and Irix), and I'm starting to trust them just as much as I do old, slow FFS.
Ugh. HFS+ is not a Unix filesystem. It's a Macintosh filesystem, introduced in OS8, that's been modified so it can play nice with a Unix-like OS. Darwin/OSX also use old, slow, reliable Berkeley FFS, the filesystem on which ext2 was patterned. HFS+ isn't an ideal Unix filesystem, because it doesn't have case-sensitivity by default, and it has features that would be wasted by typical Unix. The reasons it's there in OSX are backward compatibility and speed. Some carbon applications refuse to run on an FFS partition, and OS8/9 can't read FFS. The FFS code in Darwin is also very old now (most of it is late 80's tech), and the performance shows. The nifty things that the real BSD's have done to speed it up (soft dependencies, etc.) haven't found their way into the weird mach almalgam that is XNU.
The print media look down on something different from their lofty, tradition-bound medium? Say it ain't so! They're objective journalists.* They'd never do such a thing.
(But don't mention Jayson Blair, the USA Today dude, or William Randolph Hearst, lest you get your shins bitten).
I actually installed NT on a HPFS partition one time. 16-bit filesystems rock. Heh. Actually, IIRC, MS owned the design to HPFS and IBM really couldn't do anything with it to move it forward (although, JFS is probably a better choice anyway). HPFS got updated and became NTFS in NT 3.1. HPFS support in NT officially died with WinNT 3.51, although I think you could still read them by copying over some files in NT4 and Win2k
Here is a good brief article from MS on their filesystems.
It has worked okay for me with OpenBSD, FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x (on a UFS1 partition...can't do UFS2 yet).
NetBSD for whatever reason didn't like it and had to be chainloaded on my machine. I think this is related to thier change in binary format, and grub not catching up.
I actually prefer to use grub on FreeBSD machines over their boot selector, because if there's a problem, I can boot the old kernel easier.
You like what you do -- great. If you don't like the conditions you're working in, work for someone else, or go to work for yourself. Stuffing your talent into an assembly line isn't going to make you happy in the long run, most likely. It also is going to waste the ability you've got.
Whenever I get stressed out about my job, I consider a few things.... 1. There are people doing much more stressful things than I am (soldiers, EMT's, police officers, etc. etc.). 2. I realize how boring things can be, and how slowly time passes when I don't have things that challenge me.
I've seen stories that IBM is actually working on an updated version of the 75x chip (IBM's G3) to include altivec, etc. etc....should appear in the 1.5Ghz range, clock up to about 2.5Ghz. Not 64-bit, but fast enough to keep up with most things, and most importantly of all, low power (and cool!).
At least there's someone who knows. FreeBSD, I think, has the lead on the platforms it supports (x86, alpha, and sparc64). But there are problems with it, and it's difficult to port. Yes, ports are nice, but pkgsrc does many of the same things.....
Where NetBSD really shines is on older hardware. This used to be true of linux, but it's not anymore. NetBSD on something like an old sun is worlds ahead of dealing with solaris frustration, or OpenBSD's horrid performance.
I think a big reason more people don't know about NetBSD is that most people don't have anything other than x86 machines.
The binary drivers also aren't platform-independent. I'd imagine the 8180 driver only works on 32-bit x86. Now, for the majority of people, this isn't a problem, but what happens when you buy an Athlon64 notebook and want to run a 64-bit kernel, and the driver won't work....stuck in 32-bit land until Realtek graces you with a driver.
I'm in a similar situation, which is why I bring this up. I own a notebook with a broadcom wireless chip. Dell uses these in their notebooks. For PC users, they use the NDIS wrapper and use the windows driver. It has limited functionality, but it does work. I own an iBook, so the windows driver won't work at all for me. Cisco/Linksys use this chip in their wr54g router/ap, which uses arm, I think? They've relesed the source to the AP....everything *except* the source to the driver for the broadcom chip. Broadcom seems steadfast in its refusal to release the specs on the card, so until someone manages to reverse engineer it or something, there won't be any real free driver for it, and certainly not one for non-pc platforms. So much for running Linux or BSD on my iBook.
In many places, the car then becomes illegal for street use. And many engines simply won't work with a carburateor these days because the computer systems control more than just fuel delivery. My vehiche only has a stub with a sensor in the place where the distributor is supposed to go, and they removed the casting for the mechanical fuel pump on the same engine in 1987. Throwing a carb on it would take a butt ton of work, and probably cost more than replacing all the electronics.
The draft in its present form is also very unconstitutional because it discrimates between men and women.
No it's not. See Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981). The reasoning in the decision is pretty clear -- the prohibition of women in combat is constitutionally acceptable, as are the associated selective service regulations.
I agree it would be politically unpopular, but I do not put it past the politicians in Washington these days. Why? Force strength is far below what it needs to be to conduct our foreign policy as it is. They're making do with reservists and national guardsmen, but that can only work for so long. In an emergent situation, where increasing force strength quickly is deemed necessary, the draft will be used. With a halfway decent economy and lousy military pay, it can't be done by recruiting alone in any reasonable amount of time.
I get nostalgic, too -- here's proof. But using OS9 is just so painful in other ways, it's not worth it anymore. The biggest thing I can say is that OS9 is much better if you don't have a hi-res monitor. My toilet-seat iBook was fine at 800x600 under OS9, but a royal pain under OSX. I replaced it with a newer one mainly for that reason.
The wonderful soclialist construction looks even better after eighteen years' passage. Sadly, it didn't look much different before the people left, save for being in better repair. No grandeur at all, just shabbiness.
Eastern Europe has come an awful long way since the fall of the "Evil Empire." Why people still admire it, I will never know.
It's inadmissible in most circumstances, that's a given. In the IBM suit, it's not germane to the case. In the AutoZone and DaimlerRambler cases, it might be of some significance, but not much.
As for the attorney-client violation, it may not be, actually. SCO has an internal legal department, so it very well could have been drafted there. It would fall under protected work product, just like any other legal notes.
Lawyers should not be providing editable documents like word files. Final format documents like PDF, or signed PDF would seem to be a lot better thing to be passing around legal documents.
PDF, especially Adobe's implementation, has its own problems. IANALBIHWFL (I am not a lawyer, but I have worked for lawers), in the places where I've worked, the rule was -- if someone wants a copy of something, there's a xerox machine in the corner, right next to the industral shredder. Both of those got quite a bit of work.
Unless you like being fined for contempt, of course. There is only a slightly-higher-than-normal chance the case could be dismissed on summary judgement for the defendant, but it's still a long-shot. If it's not dismissed at that time, the case will proceed at least through the plaintiff's case.
Of course, a savvy defense attorney will file cross-claims against SCO in hopes of recovering costs.
It isn't that easy. If SCO files suit, whether or not you have a relationship with them doesn't matter at all. If you are properly served, and don't show up on the court date, guess what....
They win.
End of story. Whomever they sue will have to respond.
You have to remember that OS9/Classic is a pretty simple system (dating back to the original MacOS...yes, they did quite an overhaul for OS8, but it's still basically a simple OS compared to NT or OSX...), running just as a mach task. Classic under OSX is basically just like any other subsystem..cocoa, carbon, java, aqua, etc.
And the fact that that the NT kernel already runs natively on PowerPC -- why screw with mach and the BSD layer, then getting the NT kernel to talk to that?
Also consider MS's NIH (and we can't own it) complex....why use crufty CMU and BSD code when you can use your own that you know?
A bunch of users have blogs on a communal machine I use (and my company hosts). One of these blog spammers posted a comment on a blog. The blog owner, being a bit upset about this, tracked the guy down to collect the advertising fee the advertiser agreed to by posting the ad on the site.
Note: Unauthorized advertisements posted to this site or to the comments section for this site comprises agreement to pay $100.00 (U.S.)(non-refundable) for each advertisement. I also reserve the right to terminate said advertisement(s) at any time.
Upon receiving the collection notice, the blog spammer sent a complaint notice to our ISP saying that we were sending UCE. Jerkoff. The whole saga starts here and continues for several entries....
But far be it from the slashdot crowd to understand this. Rule number one of leftist trolling -- mention a big Texas company tied to Bush, preferably Halliburton, but Clear Channel will do in a pinch.
People seem to misunderstand what's going on here -- first, basically, if you're *not* a religious outlet, you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an LPFM license, ever. Second, these stations, being non-commercial do not compete with commercial stations. Arbitron will not take ratings on them. Third, the entire National Association of Broadcasters was against the LPFM licenses, not just Clear Channel.
The reasons were legitimate technical reasons. This is even more true when you do what the FCC chose to do, which is make all the LPFM's non-commercial. Hopefully these stations will be tuned correctly; if not, there will be signal interference. What happens in Canada isn't germane to the discussion -- the regulations are different across the board.
I, personally, don't have a problem with LPFM, so long as there's a commercial option, and the stations are bothered by the FCC as much as the full power stations are.
BTW, I am a broadcaster, and *not* for Clear Channel.
And that's not the issue here at all, now is it? There is a free as-in-speech driver for nvidia cards. Yeah, okay, it sucks. But there is one, and people can work to make it better (although the presence of the proprietary driver discorages that).
When you get to things like Centrino, there is no free driver at all. Or my chip, a Broadcom wireless chip. These things are used in Linksys routers running Linux, so it's quite clear that there is a driver (you can actuallly see the directories that have been ripped out of the gpl'd sorce Cisco was so reluctant to release), but Broadcom steadfastly refuses to release either the driver (in any form), or specs to the card so someone else can write a free-as-in-speech driver. x86 folks can get it to sorta work using the NDIS driver. I don't have an x86 machine, so I'm just SOL as far as running Linux or BSD and having working wireless.
Slashdot Mirror
What are the features that would be wasted by typical UNIX? Extended attributes? Multiple forks for files? I'm pretty sure that Reiser, JFS, and XFS all have those features either implemented or planned.
:-) Although moving off ext* would be welcome. Unless it's to Reiser3.
Sure, sure, you're correct there. And I maintain that most unix-like systems do not put those features to use fully. Right now. It may happen with time, but it's overkill now. The datasheets on XFS are kind of mind-numbing to read, and many, many of the features present on Irix can't be used with Linux.
I'm not advocating that people running linux move to HFS+ or anything,
Egad.
I'm not advocating that people running linux move to HFS+ or anything, so it's sort of irrelevant to this discussion, but I think it makes a perfectly fine Unix filesystem for OS X, and I'd be very curious about how it stacks up to the other journaling filesystems listed in the article.
It's certainly gotten much better as a Unix FS than from say, 10.0 and 10.1. I do keep an FFS volume on my machines, mostly for things I build from pkgsrc. The journaling feature was much-needed. I had an iBook with a flaky airport card. Crash. Set it down for thrity minutes to let the fsck finish.
As far as the performance goes, there's really no way to compare as Darwin/OSX doesn't support the myriad FS's linux does, and Linux's HFS+ support isn't very mature. It does raise an interesting potential situation, though.... Because if the HFS+ support improves, it'd make dealing with linux on a macintosh much easier. No more yaboot! Just make two HFS+ partitions, and one linux swap.....
Mmmm....fancy caching to hide performance problems due to dated design. No, the bottom line on soft updates is that they help...some. But you're still dealing with a twenty-five year old filesystem design underneath. When you turn off the speed enhancements, and mount a filesystem like you would when you're doing something important (i.e. mail spools mounted sync), XFS, JFS, and Reiser would totally trounce FFS. No contest.
With FFS you do get a twenty-five year record of reliability, which is why most of the machines I administer run it. But in the grand scheme of things, JFS and XFS have been around a long time now, too (since the mid 80's in AIX and Irix), and I'm starting to trust them just as much as I do old, slow FFS.
Ugh. HFS+ is not a Unix filesystem. It's a Macintosh filesystem, introduced in OS8, that's been modified so it can play nice with a Unix-like OS. Darwin/OSX also use old, slow, reliable Berkeley FFS, the filesystem on which ext2 was patterned. HFS+ isn't an ideal Unix filesystem, because it doesn't have case-sensitivity by default, and it has features that would be wasted by typical Unix. The reasons it's there in OSX are backward compatibility and speed. Some carbon applications refuse to run on an FFS partition, and OS8/9 can't read FFS. The FFS code in Darwin is also very old now (most of it is late 80's tech), and the performance shows. The nifty things that the real BSD's have done to speed it up (soft dependencies, etc.) haven't found their way into the weird mach almalgam that is XNU.
Write support of HFS+ works under GNU/Linux.
The print media look down on something different from their lofty, tradition-bound medium? Say it ain't so! They're objective journalists.* They'd never do such a thing.
(But don't mention Jayson Blair, the USA Today dude, or William Randolph Hearst, lest you get your shins bitten).
*journalist: n. a reporter who refuses to think.
swirling lights of the wayback machine.....
I actually installed NT on a HPFS partition one time. 16-bit filesystems rock. Heh. Actually, IIRC, MS owned the design to HPFS and IBM really couldn't do anything with it to move it forward (although, JFS is probably a better choice anyway). HPFS got updated and became NTFS in NT 3.1. HPFS support in NT officially died with WinNT 3.51, although I think you could still read them by copying over some files in NT4 and Win2k
Here is a good brief article from MS on their filesystems.
GRUB can read FFS.
/boot/loader
root (hd0,a)
kernel
It has worked okay for me with OpenBSD, FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x (on a UFS1 partition...can't do UFS2 yet).
NetBSD for whatever reason didn't like it and had to be chainloaded on my machine. I think this is related to thier change in binary format, and grub not catching up.
I actually prefer to use grub on FreeBSD machines over their boot selector, because if there's a problem, I can boot the old kernel easier.
Think about your situation, and quit whining.
You like what you do -- great. If you don't like the conditions you're working in, work for someone else, or go to work for yourself. Stuffing your talent into an assembly line isn't going to make you happy in the long run, most likely. It also is going to waste the ability you've got.
Whenever I get stressed out about my job, I consider a few things.... 1. There are people doing much more stressful things than I am (soldiers, EMT's, police officers, etc. etc.). 2. I realize how boring things can be, and how slowly time passes when I don't have things that challenge me.
YMMV.
You obviously haven't spent much time on a college campus lately.
Recommended reading....
The Shadow University
and....
Dr. Mike S. Adams.
"[T]he chances of both machines being vulnerable at the same time is exceptionally remote."
Except things like OpenSSL, apache, zlib, etc. etc. etc......
Slashdotted after two comments!
I've seen stories that IBM is actually working on an updated version of the 75x chip (IBM's G3) to include altivec, etc. etc....should appear in the 1.5Ghz range, clock up to about 2.5Ghz. Not 64-bit, but fast enough to keep up with most things, and most importantly of all, low power (and cool!).
Another trolling gentoo user...gotta love it.
/usr/src/crypto/openssl
cvsup....
cd
make
make install
At least there's someone who knows. FreeBSD, I think, has the lead on the platforms it supports (x86, alpha, and sparc64). But there are problems with it, and it's difficult to port. Yes, ports are nice, but pkgsrc does many of the same things.....
Where NetBSD really shines is on older hardware. This used to be true of linux, but it's not anymore. NetBSD on something like an old sun is worlds ahead of dealing with solaris frustration, or OpenBSD's horrid performance.
I think a big reason more people don't know about NetBSD is that most people don't have anything other than x86 machines.
Thing is....
The binary drivers also aren't platform-independent. I'd imagine the 8180 driver only works on 32-bit x86. Now, for the majority of people, this isn't a problem, but what happens when you buy an Athlon64 notebook and want to run a 64-bit kernel, and the driver won't work....stuck in 32-bit land until Realtek graces you with a driver.
I'm in a similar situation, which is why I bring this up. I own a notebook with a broadcom wireless chip. Dell uses these in their notebooks. For PC users, they use the NDIS wrapper and use the windows driver. It has limited functionality, but it does work. I own an iBook, so the windows driver won't work at all for me. Cisco/Linksys use this chip in their wr54g router/ap, which uses arm, I think? They've relesed the source to the AP....everything *except* the source to the driver for the broadcom chip. Broadcom seems steadfast in its refusal to release the specs on the card, so until someone manages to reverse engineer it or something, there won't be any real free driver for it, and certainly not one for non-pc platforms. So much for running Linux or BSD on my iBook.
In many places, the car then becomes illegal for street use. And many engines simply won't work with a carburateor these days because the computer systems control more than just fuel delivery. My vehiche only has a stub with a sensor in the place where the distributor is supposed to go, and they removed the casting for the mechanical fuel pump on the same engine in 1987. Throwing a carb on it would take a butt ton of work, and probably cost more than replacing all the electronics.
The draft in its present form is also very unconstitutional because it discrimates between men and women.
No it's not. See Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981). The reasoning in the decision is pretty clear -- the prohibition of women in combat is constitutionally acceptable, as are the associated selective service regulations.
I agree it would be politically unpopular, but I do not put it past the politicians in Washington these days. Why? Force strength is far below what it needs to be to conduct our foreign policy as it is. They're making do with reservists and national guardsmen, but that can only work for so long. In an emergent situation, where increasing force strength quickly is deemed necessary, the draft will be used. With a halfway decent economy and lousy military pay, it can't be done by recruiting alone in any reasonable amount of time.
I get nostalgic, too -- here's proof. But using OS9 is just so painful in other ways, it's not worth it anymore. The biggest thing I can say is that OS9 is much better if you don't have a hi-res monitor. My toilet-seat iBook was fine at 800x600 under OS9, but a royal pain under OSX. I replaced it with a newer one mainly for that reason.
The wonderful soclialist construction looks even better after eighteen years' passage. Sadly, it didn't look much different before the people left, save for being in better repair. No grandeur at all, just shabbiness.
Eastern Europe has come an awful long way since the fall of the "Evil Empire." Why people still admire it, I will never know.
It's inadmissible in most circumstances, that's a given. In the IBM suit, it's not germane to the case. In the AutoZone and DaimlerRambler cases, it might be of some significance, but not much.
As for the attorney-client violation, it may not be, actually. SCO has an internal legal department, so it very well could have been drafted there. It would fall under protected work product, just like any other legal notes.
Lawyers should not be providing editable documents like word files. Final format documents like PDF, or signed PDF would seem to be a lot better thing to be passing around legal documents.
PDF, especially Adobe's implementation, has its own problems. IANALBIHWFL (I am not a lawyer, but I have worked for lawers), in the places where I've worked, the rule was -- if someone wants a copy of something, there's a xerox machine in the corner, right next to the industral shredder. Both of those got quite a bit of work.
"Piss off" isn't a proper response.
Unless you like being fined for contempt, of course. There is only a slightly-higher-than-normal chance the case could be dismissed on summary judgement for the defendant, but it's still a long-shot. If it's not dismissed at that time, the case will proceed at least through the plaintiff's case.
Of course, a savvy defense attorney will file cross-claims against SCO in hopes of recovering costs.
You fail it.
It isn't that easy. If SCO files suit, whether or not you have a relationship with them doesn't matter at all. If you are properly served, and don't show up on the court date, guess what....
They win.
End of story. Whomever they sue will have to respond.
You have to remember that OS9/Classic is a pretty simple system (dating back to the original MacOS...yes, they did quite an overhaul for OS8, but it's still basically a simple OS compared to NT or OSX...), running just as a mach task. Classic under OSX is basically just like any other subsystem..cocoa, carbon, java, aqua, etc.
And the fact that that the NT kernel already runs natively on PowerPC -- why screw with mach and the BSD layer, then getting the NT kernel to talk to that?
Also consider MS's NIH (and we can't own it) complex....why use crufty CMU and BSD code when you can use your own that you know?
A bunch of users have blogs on a communal machine I use (and my company hosts). One of these blog spammers posted a comment on a blog. The blog owner, being a bit upset about this, tracked the guy down to collect the advertising fee the advertiser agreed to by posting the ad on the site.
Note: Unauthorized advertisements posted to this site or to the comments section for this site comprises agreement to pay $100.00 (U.S.)(non-refundable) for each advertisement. I also reserve the right to terminate said advertisement(s) at any time.
Upon receiving the collection notice, the blog spammer sent a complaint notice to our ISP saying that we were sending UCE. Jerkoff. The whole saga starts here and continues for several entries....
But far be it from the slashdot crowd to understand this. Rule number one of leftist trolling -- mention a big Texas company tied to Bush, preferably Halliburton, but Clear Channel will do in a pinch.
People seem to misunderstand what's going on here -- first, basically, if you're *not* a religious outlet, you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an LPFM license, ever. Second, these stations, being non-commercial do not compete with commercial stations. Arbitron will not take ratings on them. Third, the entire National Association of Broadcasters was against the LPFM licenses, not just Clear Channel.
The reasons were legitimate technical reasons. This is even more true when you do what the FCC chose to do, which is make all the LPFM's non-commercial. Hopefully these stations will be tuned correctly; if not, there will be signal interference. What happens in Canada isn't germane to the discussion -- the regulations are different across the board.
I, personally, don't have a problem with LPFM, so long as there's a commercial option, and the stations are bothered by the FCC as much as the full power stations are.
BTW, I am a broadcaster, and *not* for Clear Channel.
And that's not the issue here at all, now is it? There is a free as-in-speech driver for nvidia cards. Yeah, okay, it sucks. But there is one, and people can work to make it better (although the presence of the proprietary driver discorages that).
When you get to things like Centrino, there is no free driver at all. Or my chip, a Broadcom wireless chip. These things are used in Linksys routers running Linux, so it's quite clear that there is a driver (you can actuallly see the directories that have been ripped out of the gpl'd sorce Cisco was so reluctant to release), but Broadcom steadfastly refuses to release either the driver (in any form), or specs to the card so someone else can write a free-as-in-speech driver. x86 folks can get it to sorta work using the NDIS driver. I don't have an x86 machine, so I'm just SOL as far as running Linux or BSD and having working wireless.