> It's dog slow since all data needs to be written on disk twice, once to the file and once to the journal, but at least it keeps your data intact well.
This is in theory but in some setups data=journal mode can actually be faster than all of the other Linux journaling FS and ext2. Please refer to:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/libr ar y/l-fs8.html
> Wrong, Journaling filesystems insure a sane metadata state, they do nothing to protect data.
This is true with the exception of ext3 which can journal data (data=journal mode) as well. Even in its default data=ordered mode ext3 can mostly guarantee data integrity by using transactions.
Please refer to: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/l ibrar y/l-fs7/
First of I do not understand your attitude. I was just pointing out to you that SuSE is not based on Redhat and not whether their policy is good or not. If you must know SuSE Linux is based on Jurix (an older German distro).
> yet it uses standard RED HAT rpms.....
So what, RPM is open source. At the time of their switching from tar.gz (before Debian) everyone was standardizing on RPM.
> Im not even going to get into the uselessness of the personal edition with all its missing apps,
I also think that the personal edition is a waste of time
> the lack of DVD support,
LOL, I can play DVD's just fine. SuSE is also packaged on one DVD as an alternative to the multiple CD's. How can someone install it if SuSE doesn't support DVD?
> the no iso policy etc etc.
So, do an ftp install. No one is stopping you.
> sure they produce a great product.. at a price.
I just checked on cheapbyte, SuSE Professinal is US$78.00, Redhat Professinal is US $196.00, and Mandrake Prosuite (closest to SuSE Pro) is US$141.00 . Also remember the term Free software means freedom to look at and modify the source and not cost.
> I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
> As of version 3.x GCC is missing the capability to compile Linux kernel.
Just because it is not recommended yet does not mean that it does not work. I have been compiling the kernel with gcc 3.x when 3.0.3 came out with good results.
> The problem you'd encounter when porting an application from OS X to *ix is that OS X apps use Cocoa, > which doesn't exist for your fave open source OS.
I disagree, it should be easy once the GUI-kit of GNUstep is complete which should be later on this year.
The site is Slashdoted. If it is the same as the ones on http://www.chsoft.com then they haven't released the real interesting package which is "DESQview/X to Other X Systems". That package would allow DesQview/X to function as an X server.
I remember DESQview fondly. I used it for many years and refuse to move to Win 3.x until there were no new DOS apps. DESQview was a really advanced multitasking system as compared to Win 3.x because it actually does preemptive mutitasking. It also allows you to adjust the time slice (called clock ticks in DESQview jargon) on the fly.
> and could possibly help lots of other existing projects; for example, WINE.
Actually it won't help WINE because you still need a copy of Win 3.1 in order to run Windows apps in DESQview X. Also, it will only run it in real mode.
> QMM was needed with DesqView because it required a lot of resources.
Actually it is QEMM. You also need it because QEMM have special hooks for DESQview which other memory managers don't.
> QMM was needed with DesqView because it required a lot of resources
Actaully it is QEMM. You also need it because QEMM have special hooks for DESQview that other memory managers don't.
Slashdot Mirror
> It's dog slow since all data needs to be written on disk twice, once to the file and once to the journal, but at least it keeps your data intact well.
r ar y/l-fs8.html
This is in theory but in some setups data=journal mode can actually be faster than all of the other Linux journaling FS and ext2. Please refer to:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/lib
> Wrong, Journaling filesystems insure a sane metadata state, they do nothing to protect data.
l ibrar y/l-fs7/
This is true with the exception of ext3 which can journal data (data=journal mode) as well. Even in its default data=ordered mode ext3 can mostly guarantee data integrity by using transactions.
Please refer to:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/
There is a good series of articles at IBM located at:
- fs .html
r ar y/l-fs7/
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l
The links to the other articles are in the resources section with the exception of part 7 which is located at:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/lib
There is also the Pie Menu Window Manager. You can find it at:
http://www.crynwr.com/piewm/
Thanks for the info. It is good to know.
Charles
> Sorry but Mandrake isn't built on Red Hat. Don't know about now, but when Mandrake first started it is nothing but Redhat with KDE. Charles
> BTW Charles - the AC is my sig and not directed at you
:-)
Thanks for the clarification, I over reacted.
Charles
First of I do not understand your attitude. I was just pointing out to you that SuSE is not based on Redhat and not whether their policy is good or not. If you must know SuSE Linux is based on Jurix (an older German distro).
> yet it uses standard RED HAT rpms.....
So what, RPM is open source. At the time of their switching from tar.gz (before Debian) everyone was standardizing on RPM.
> Im not even going to get into the uselessness of the personal edition with all its missing apps,
I also think that the personal edition is a waste of time
> the lack of DVD support,
LOL, I can play DVD's just fine. SuSE is also packaged on one DVD as an alternative to the multiple CD's. How can someone install it if SuSE doesn't support DVD?
> the no iso policy etc etc.
So, do an ftp install. No one is stopping you.
> sure they produce a great product.. at a price.
I just checked on cheapbyte, SuSE Professinal is US$78.00, Redhat Professinal is US $196.00, and Mandrake Prosuite (closest to SuSE Pro) is US$141.00 . Also remember the term Free software means freedom to look at and modify the source and not cost.
> I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
Excuse me, since when did I post as an AC?
Charles
>But it is interesting to note that the three standards all have soimething in common ...
> 1. Built on Red Hat
Hum... SuSE is not based on Redhat.
Just over 1 meg on my machine. I am not worried.
> Only 26.2 POUNDS!! WOW!! maybe then I could get some exercise!
:-).
They use to have a picture of a suite carrying the thing in an airport like it was a breifcase on their ads. Great idea until you try doing it
The Osbourne shown on the page is definitely a 1B. I still have one in mint condition.
> Ah, the memories. Z80 processor with an 8 bit bus. The OS was CP/M80.
Yes this is correct, although later on you can buy an 8080 co-proccessor daughter board to run ms-dos 1.
> That modem in its drive storage slot was not standard issue
Correct again and the modem is a 300 baud acoustic coupler.
> The computer game of choice was adventur
I think Zork 1 was more popular.
This is bringing back a lot of momories. The Osbourne 1B was my first computer.
> As of version 3.x GCC is missing the capability to compile Linux kernel.
Just because it is not recommended yet does not mean that it does not work. I have been compiling the kernel with gcc 3.x when 3.0.3 came out with good results.
Charles
> I am pretty sure GNUStep is WAY out of date with Cocoa. I don't think it would be an easy task to update it either.
No, GNUstep actually follows the Cocoa API very closely. One of its goals is easy porting of Cocoa and GNUstep apps.
> The problem you'd encounter when porting an application from OS X to *ix is that OS X apps use Cocoa,
> which doesn't exist for your fave open source OS.
I disagree, it should be easy once the GUI-kit of GNUstep is complete which should be later on this year.
The site is Slashdoted. If it is the same as the ones on http://www.chsoft.com then they haven't released the real interesting package which is "DESQview/X to Other X Systems". That package would allow DesQview/X to function as an X server.
I remember DESQview fondly. I used it for many years and refuse to move to Win 3.x until there were no new DOS apps. DESQview was a really advanced multitasking system as compared to Win 3.x because it actually does preemptive mutitasking. It also allows you to adjust the time slice (called clock ticks in DESQview jargon) on the fly.
> and could possibly help lots of other existing projects; for example, WINE.
Actually it won't help WINE because you still need a copy of Win 3.1 in order to run Windows apps in DESQview X. Also, it will only run it in real mode.
> Ancient X apps and Windows 3.1 applications?
Actually there are no X apps bundled with DESQview X. It is just a graphically version of DESQview with a built in X server.
> QMM was needed with DesqView because it required a lot of resources. Actually it is QEMM. You also need it because QEMM have special hooks for DESQview which other memory managers don't.
> QMM was needed with DesqView because it required a lot of resources Actaully it is QEMM. You also need it because QEMM have special hooks for DESQview that other memory managers don't.