[News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs - Linux ; tramp wrote: > > No, it is not a bug in Ubuntu. Ubuntu makes no changes to hard-drive > settings that would cause this problem. This is a manufacture defect, for > which only the manufacturer is to blame. Actually, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 119

Thread: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

  1. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    tramp wrote:
    >
    > No, it is not a bug in Ubuntu. Ubuntu makes no changes to hard-drive
    > settings that would cause this problem. This is a manufacture defect, for
    > which only the manufacturer is to blame.


    Actually, from what I've read on the forums, this bug is effecting
    other distros also. Ubuntu was just the one it was discovered on
    (probably because it is more popular on laptops).

    Thad


  2. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:45:25 +0000, tramp wrote:

    >
    > Only in certain brands of HD's where the manufacturer programmed
    > incorrect settings into their firmware. Linux developers mistakenly
    > assumed that the manufacturer knows the best settings for their device
    > and used the defaults recommended by the firmware. Windows and OS/X both
    > ignore the manufacturer-supplied settings -- thus demonstrating that two
    > wrongs can occasionally make a right.



    Anyone have a list?



  3. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, LessSpeed, More Bugs

    On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:21:39 -0800, alt wrote:

    > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:45:25 +0000, tramp wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Only in certain brands of HD's where the manufacturer programmed
    >> incorrect settings into their firmware. Linux developers mistakenly
    >> assumed that the manufacturer knows the best settings for their device
    >> and used the defaults recommended by the firmware. Windows and OS/X
    >> both ignore the manufacturer-supplied settings -- thus demonstrating
    >> that two wrongs can occasionally make a right.

    >
    >
    > Anyone have a list?


    I've looked for a specific list and haven't found any, though Hitachi
    pops up a lot in the discussions. Many posters have said their Western
    Digital drives are fine. However, I've seen one claim by one WD owner who
    was having this problem. There was some speculation that rather than the
    HD, it was his laptop BIOS intercepting communications and substituting
    bad defaults.

    There's a lot of misinformation and some unreliable fixes floating
    around, especially in the earlier discussions where everyone was trying
    to figure it all out. This summary by one of the ubuntuforums moderators
    includes instructions for checking your HD and one of the best
    suggestions I've seen for an interim fix:

    http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php...0&postcount=26

    If you want to know more about the problem itself, see the URL's listed
    under "READ THIS FIRST:"

  4. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    tramp writes:

    >
    > Agreed, once the developers become aware of such a problem then no matter
    > whose fault it is, they owe it to their users to make a reasonable effort
    > to develop a work-around. I am really peeved that the Ubuntu
    > developers


    So you agree it's a bug. Good.

  5. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    AZ Nomad writes:

    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:10:25 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:45:42 GMT, AZ Nomad wrote:

    >
    >>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:26:44 -0800, alt wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/lapto...9276024,00.htm
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> For a laptop, those are darned good specifications.
    >>>>>> And yet Vista Aero -- or is it just regular old Vista? --
    >>>>>> runs "really quite awful", apparently.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No Aero (as far as I could tell). It was just constant though. Open up
    >>>>> anything and you got the "hourglass". Lots of UAC interruptions it would
    >>>>> seem, but I was also doing admin operations.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But it just felt slow. Like something else was more important than the
    >>>>> user.
    >>>
    >>>>Vista takes a few days to "settle down". It has to index search the drive,
    >>>>it does a full disk defrag, and a number o f other disk intensive
    >>>
    >>> disk defrag on a new instalation? What the **** are you running, windows
    >>> 3.0?

    >
    >>The defrag also rearranges the files for faster startup.

    >
    > You are quite the commedian. You sound like an audio salesman
    > reporting that oversampling CD players involve reading the media multiple
    > times and taking an average. You're talking out of your ass.


    Probably not. There used to be a great tool for OS/2 called lxopt which
    reorganised programs on disk so that the most frequently called parts
    were in the same disk unit for paging reductions. But of course,
    physical arrangement of various files in the disk can and does alter
    load times.

    http://www.os2ezine.com/announcements/july8.htm#lxopt

    --
    Cats are intended to teach us that not everything in nature has a function.
    -- Garrison Keillor

  6. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    William Poaster writes:
    >>
    >> Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.

    >
    > Absolutely.
    > Oops! Careful now! We'll have the Quack troll saying, that we said linux
    > filesystems don't fragment.
    >
    > I'm not joking, that's *just* what he said in another group. I replied to
    > someone that modern linux filesystems don't need defragmenting. The idiot Quack
    > troll claimed that I said linux filesystems don't fragment! See how
    > dumb he is?


    You really are the dumbest poster ever Willy. You're like a little girl
    who's just discovered a boy band in your shrieking over Linux.

    The fact that you've put your foot in it again : all by yourself this
    time should demonstrate to the other "advocates" just how useless your
    input really is.

    Now don't choke on your COLA Pops :

    http://www.webservertalk.com/archive...5-1037740.html

    ,----
    | We discovered that our original ext3 /var/spool/mail filesystem was
    | heavily fragmented:
    |
    | # fsck -f /dev/sde1
    | fsck 1.32 (09-Nov-2002)
    | e2fsck 1.32 (09-Nov-2002)
    | Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
    | Pass 2: Checking directory structure
    | Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
    | Pass 4: Checking reference counts
    | Pass 5: Checking group summary information
    | /var/spool/mail: 4340/16777216 files (92.5% non-contiguous),
    | 5132569/33553752 blocks
    |
    | The general consensus after several google searches is that
    | fragmentation should not be a big problem with ext2/3. Clearly,
    | however, at least for us, fragmentation became a big issue. Defrag
    | tools we found seeem to be pretty old.
    `----

    But, you see, you're an amateur fiddler : you don't actually use Linux
    for anything. it's why it always "meets your needs". You have no
    need. You have no clue. And you have no value to Linux advocacy.

    Question: does Linux ever need defragging
    Willy Boaster : No. Never!

    --
    It's always darkest just before the lights go out.
    -- Alex Clark

  7. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Hadron wrote:

    > William Poaster writes:
    >>>
    >>> Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.

    >>
    >> Absolutely.
    >> Oops! Careful now! We'll have the Quack troll saying, that we said linux
    >> filesystems don't fragment.
    >>
    >> I'm not joking, that's *just* what he said in another group. I replied to
    >> someone that modern linux filesystems don't need defragmenting. The idiot
    >> Quack troll claimed that I said linux filesystems don't fragment! See how
    >> dumb he is?

    >
    > You really are the dumbest poster ever Willy. You're like a little girl
    > who's just discovered a boy band in your shrieking over Linux.
    >


    Do you actually claim that it did not happen, "true linux advocate", "kernel
    hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS
    guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger professional", "newsreader
    magician", "hardware maven" and "time coordinator" Hadron Quark, aka Hans
    Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian O'Leary?

    Tiny hint: It did. You (again) misrepresented what has been written

    < snip more "true linux advocacy" (the Hadron Quark way) >

    --
    Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice which can be equally well
    explained by stupidity


  8. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, LessSpeed, More Bugs

    On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:17:11 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    > tramp writes:
    >
    >
    >> Agreed, once the developers become aware of such a problem then no
    >> matter whose fault it is, they owe it to their users to make a
    >> reasonable effort to develop a work-around. I am really peeved that the
    >> Ubuntu developers

    >
    > So you agree it's a bug. Good.


    Yep, just as I said in the part you clipped, it's a bug in the firmware
    the manufacturers install in their hard drives. In an ideal world they
    would fix their defective devices themselves. In the real world it falls
    to OSS developers to develop a work-around. Not out of any legal or moral
    obligation, but simply because OSS developers care more about their users
    than these big corporations do.

  9. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    William Poaster writes:

    > AZ Nomad wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> I just checked my FS's. ¬*0.5% fragmentation. ¬*

    >
    > This is at 0.2% ATM. One of the other systems I checked which is *older* &
    > running Ubuntu 6.06LTS (June 06) is at 0.4%. I intend updating it when the next
    > LTS version is released....might upgrade the machine too.
    >
    >> I didn't say it doesn't fragment, or that there's no performance penalty, or
    >> that it unfragments as it goes. ¬*Just that it doesn't require defragmentation.

    >
    > I didn't say that it doesn't fragment either, just I just stated that it does
    > not require *defragmenting*. But as usual Quack took 2+2 & made 6, saying that
    > I said linux doesn't fragment. What a buffoon.


    Windows doesn't fragment terribly either unless you're
    installing/uninstalling lots of little things a lot. But you've seen the
    links about Linux fragmentation on maildir directories haven't you? So
    you are aware of what an idiot you have been sounding? Good. That's got
    that one cleared up.

    Most fragmentation has little impact on the system in my experience
    anyway.

    --
    E come disse Isaac Newton subito dopo che una mela gli cadde sulla testa:
    "Strano, io sono seduto sotto un pero!".
    -- Laugh-In

  10. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    William Poaster writes:

    > Sinister Midget wrote:
    >
    >> On 2007-11-21, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    >>
    >>> So what you meant then is that you find the level of fragmentation and
    >>> typical performance of a fragmented linux filesystem to be acceptable. Or
    >>> perhaps you're saying that you don't feel the need to defragment.
    >>>
    >>> That's a subjective argument. I'm sure many people don't "need" to ever
    >>> defragment a Windows OS either.

    >>
    >> Unless they want it to run worth a crap. Or perhaps they're having
    >> someone else do it. Or maybe it doesn't stand up to malware and bitrot
    >> long enough for them to see deficinecies caused by fragmentation.
    >>
    >> I used a program to defrag (called 'defrag') on linux a long, long time
    >> ago. I thought I needed it. Since I stopped using it I've seen zero
    >> difference in performance between using it and not using it.

    >
    > There is a linux defragging application which is about 10 years old, & only used
    > on ext2 fs. It's never been updated, as it is simply not needed.
    >
    >> I've seen the previous system (500MHz, 384M) report fragmentation of
    >> more than 25% since then. Probably higher, but that's the ballpark
    >> number I remember. I've had no slowdown that I could detect. If I
    >> allowed the Windows machine (1.7GHz, 512M) at work to get to that level
    >> it would take forever just to open the defrag program to fix it.

    >
    > Unlike windoze, there is NO defragment application for ext3 or Reiser journaled
    > filesystems.
    >
    > Here's why linux doesn't need it:
    > http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ind..._defragmenting.


    Poor, poor Willy. Quite the monkey boy.

    http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/qna/15032.html

    ,----
    | A brief overview of Reiserfs can
    | be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReiserFS. Also, the next
    | generation of ReisferFS (Reiser4) will be designed to have a built in
    | defragmenter, although I don't know when or if Novell will use this
    | filesystem.
    `----

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReiserFS

    ,----
    | However, Reiser4 will have a repacker that optimizes file fragmentation
    `----

    --
    E come disse Isaac Newton subito dopo che una mela gli cadde sulla testa:
    "Strano, io sono seduto sotto un pero!".
    -- Laugh-In

  11. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" writes:

    > "William Poaster" wrote \> Here's why linux doesn't need
    > it:
    >> http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ind...efragmenting.\

    >
    > Why does Linux need defragmenting
    >
    > http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2270
    >



    Yup. Fan boyz like Willy don't like the truth.

    ,----
    | So, who still believes this myth that everything in the land of Linux
    | filesystems is nice and perfect? Fortunately, some kernel developers
    | have started investigating this problem and possible solutions.
    `----

    He really is, to borrow his phrase, quite the buffoon.

    --
    El mundo es un telón de teatro tras el cual se esconden los secretos más
    profundos.
    -- Rainer Mar√*a Rilke. (1875-1926) Escritor austr√*aco.

  12. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    tramp writes:

    > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:17:11 +0100, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> tramp writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Agreed, once the developers become aware of such a problem then no
    >>> matter whose fault it is, they owe it to their users to make a
    >>> reasonable effort to develop a work-around. I am really peeved that the
    >>> Ubuntu developers

    >>
    >> So you agree it's a bug. Good.

    >
    > Yep, just as I said in the part you clipped, it's a bug in the firmware
    > the manufacturers install in their hard drives. In an ideal world they
    > would fix their defective devices themselves. In the real world it falls
    > to OSS developers to develop a work-around. Not out of any legal or moral
    > obligation, but simply because OSS developers care more about their users
    > than these big corporations do.


    If the SW does not work with the HW then it's a bug. If the SW continues
    not to work it remains a bug. When they fix the SW then the bug is
    fixed. As has been explained HW can have many oddities and since you
    can't patch HW then you need to patch the SW.

    --
    El mundo es un telón de teatro tras el cual se esconden los secretos más
    profundos.
    -- Rainer Mar√*a Rilke. (1875-1926) Escritor austr√*aco.

  13. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Hadron wrote:

    > William Poaster writes:
    >
    >> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2007-11-21, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    >>>
    >>>> So what you meant then is that you find the level of fragmentation and
    >>>> typical performance of a fragmented linux filesystem to be acceptable.
    >>>> Or perhaps you're saying that you don't feel the need to defragment.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's a subjective argument. I'm sure many people don't "need" to
    >>>> ever defragment a Windows OS either.
    >>>
    >>> Unless they want it to run worth a crap. Or perhaps they're having
    >>> someone else do it. Or maybe it doesn't stand up to malware and bitrot
    >>> long enough for them to see deficinecies caused by fragmentation.
    >>>
    >>> I used a program to defrag (called 'defrag') on linux a long, long time
    >>> ago. I thought I needed it. Since I stopped using it I've seen zero
    >>> difference in performance between using it and not using it.

    >>
    >> There is a linux defragging application which is about 10 years old, &
    >> only used on ext2 fs. It's never been updated, as it is simply not
    >> needed.
    >>
    >>> I've seen the previous system (500MHz, 384M) report fragmentation of
    >>> more than 25% since then. Probably higher, but that's the ballpark
    >>> number I remember. I've had no slowdown that I could detect. If I
    >>> allowed the Windows machine (1.7GHz, 512M) at work to get to that level
    >>> it would take forever just to open the defrag program to fix it.

    >>
    >> Unlike windoze, there is NO defragment application for ext3 or Reiser
    >> journaled filesystems.
    >>
    >> Here's why linux doesn't need it:
    >>

    http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ind..._defragmenting.
    >
    > Poor, poor Willy. Quite the monkey boy.
    >
    > http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/qna/15032.html


    /quote from that site
    Q:
    When I was using Windows, I had to run a defragmentation program quite often
    to speed up my computer. Where do I do this in Linux?

    A:
    Unlike Windows' filesystems, most filesystems that run on Linux have no need
    of being defragemented because they prevent fragments from occurring in the
    first place.

    If you use the default filesystem (ReiserFS), you'll never have to
    defragment your hard drive as long as you use it.
    /unquote


    Poor Hadron Quark, "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs
    user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server
    admin", "defragger professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven"
    and "time coordinator" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka
    Damian O'Leary


    Still that extremely severe reading comprehension problem
    --
    Windows was created to keep stupid people away from UNIX."
    -- Tom Christiansen


  14. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Hadron wrote:

    > "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" writes:
    >
    >> "William Poaster" wrote \> Here's why linux doesn't
    >> need it:
    >>>

    http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ind..._defragmenting
    \
    >>
    >> Why does Linux need defragmenting
    >>
    >> http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2270
    >>

    >
    >
    > Yup. Fan boyz like Willy don't like the truth.
    >


    /quote
    This so often repeated myth is getting so old and so boring. And untrue.
    Linux doesn't need defragmenting, because its filesystem handling is not so
    stupid like when using several decades old FAT
    /unquote

    > ,----
    > | So, who still believes this myth that everything in the land of Linux
    > | filesystems is nice and perfect? Fortunately, some kernel developers
    > | have started investigating this problem and possible solutions.
    > `----
    >
    > He really is, to borrow his phrase, quite the buffoon.
    >


    Your reading comprehension problems are really awful, "true linux
    advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X
    specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
    professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven" and "time
    coordinator" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian
    O'Leary

    --
    To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it.
    To mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.


  15. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:43:30 +0100, Peter KŲhlmann wrote:


    >Hadron wrote:


    >> William Poaster writes:
    >>
    >>> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2007-11-21, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    >>>>
    >>>>> So what you meant then is that you find the level of fragmentation and
    >>>>> typical performance of a fragmented linux filesystem to be acceptable.
    >>>>> Or perhaps you're saying that you don't feel the need to defragment.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's a subjective argument. I'm sure many people don't "need" to
    >>>>> ever defragment a Windows OS either.
    >>>>
    >>>> Unless they want it to run worth a crap. Or perhaps they're having
    >>>> someone else do it. Or maybe it doesn't stand up to malware and bitrot
    >>>> long enough for them to see deficinecies caused by fragmentation.
    >>>>
    >>>> I used a program to defrag (called 'defrag') on linux a long, long time
    >>>> ago. I thought I needed it. Since I stopped using it I've seen zero
    >>>> difference in performance between using it and not using it.
    >>>
    >>> There is a linux defragging application which is about 10 years old, &
    >>> only used on ext2 fs. It's never been updated, as it is simply not
    >>> needed.
    >>>
    >>>> I've seen the previous system (500MHz, 384M) report fragmentation of
    >>>> more than 25% since then. Probably higher, but that's the ballpark
    >>>> number I remember. I've had no slowdown that I could detect. If I
    >>>> allowed the Windows machine (1.7GHz, 512M) at work to get to that level
    >>>> it would take forever just to open the defrag program to fix it.
    >>>
    >>> Unlike windoze, there is NO defragment application for ext3 or Reiser
    >>> journaled filesystems.
    >>>
    >>> Here's why linux doesn't need it:
    >>>

    >http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ind..._defragmenting.
    >>
    >> Poor, poor Willy. Quite the monkey boy.
    >>
    >> http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/qna/15032.html


    >/quote from that site
    >Q:
    >When I was using Windows, I had to run a defragmentation program quite often
    >to speed up my computer. Where do I do this in Linux?


    >A:
    >Unlike Windows' filesystems, most filesystems that run on Linux have no need
    >of being defragemented because they prevent fragments from occurring in the
    >first place.


    >If you use the default filesystem (ReiserFS), you'll never have to
    >defragment your hard drive as long as you use it.
    >/unquote


    You used the word Reiser. Cue hadron for a kneejerk ad hominem.

  16. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> William Poaster writes:
    >>
    >>> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2007-11-21, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    >>>>
    >>>>> So what you meant then is that you find the level of fragmentation and
    >>>>> typical performance of a fragmented linux filesystem to be acceptable.
    >>>>> Or perhaps you're saying that you don't feel the need to defragment.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's a subjective argument. I'm sure many people don't "need" to
    >>>>> ever defragment a Windows OS either.
    >>>>
    >>>> Unless they want it to run worth a crap. Or perhaps they're having
    >>>> someone else do it. Or maybe it doesn't stand up to malware and bitrot
    >>>> long enough for them to see deficinecies caused by fragmentation.
    >>>>
    >>>> I used a program to defrag (called 'defrag') on linux a long, long time
    >>>> ago. I thought I needed it. Since I stopped using it I've seen zero
    >>>> difference in performance between using it and not using it.
    >>>
    >>> There is a linux defragging application which is about 10 years old, &
    >>> only used on ext2 fs. It's never been updated, as it is simply not
    >>> needed.
    >>>
    >>>> I've seen the previous system (500MHz, 384M) report fragmentation of
    >>>> more than 25% since then. Probably higher, but that's the ballpark
    >>>> number I remember. I've had no slowdown that I could detect. If I
    >>>> allowed the Windows machine (1.7GHz, 512M) at work to get to that level
    >>>> it would take forever just to open the defrag program to fix it.
    >>>
    >>> Unlike windoze, there is NO defragment application for ext3 or Reiser
    >>> journaled filesystems.
    >>>
    >>> Here's why linux doesn't need it:
    >>>

    >

    http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ind..._defragmenting.
    >>
    >> Poor, poor Willy. Quite the monkey boy.
    >>
    >> http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/qna/15032.html

    >
    > /quote from that site
    > Q:
    > When I was using Windows, I had to run a defragmentation program quite often
    > to speed up my computer. Where do I do this in Linux?
    >
    > A:
    > Unlike Windows' filesystems, most filesystems that run on Linux have no need
    > of being defragemented because they prevent fragments from occurring in the
    > first place.
    >
    > If you use the default filesystem (ReiserFS), you'll never have to
    > defragment your hard drive as long as you use it.
    > /unquote


    Shot himself in the foot again.

    >
    > Poor Hadron Quark, "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs
    > user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server
    > admin", "defragger professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven"
    > and "time coordinator" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka
    > Damian O'Leary
    >
    >
    > Still that extremely severe reading comprehension problem.


    Maybe he doesn't understand English.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  17. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> William Poaster writes:
    >>>>
    >>>> Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.
    >>>
    >>> Absolutely.
    >>> Oops! Careful now! We'll have the Quack troll saying, that we said linux
    >>> filesystems don't fragment.
    >>>
    >>> I'm not joking, that's *just* what he said in another group. I replied to
    >>> someone that modern linux filesystems don't need defragmenting. The idiot
    >>> Quack troll claimed that I said linux filesystems don't fragment! See how
    >>> dumb he is?

    >>
    >> You really are the dumbest poster ever Willy. You're like a little girl
    >> who's just discovered a boy band in your shrieking over Linux.
    >>

    >
    > Do you actually claim that it did not happen, "true linux advocate", "kernel
    > hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist", "CUPS
    > guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger professional", "newsreader
    > magician", "hardware maven" and "time coordinator" Hadron Quark, aka Hans
    > Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian O'Leary?
    >
    > Tiny hint: It did. You (again) misrepresented what has been written


    Yup, he misrepresented what was posted. He really has got severe comprehension
    problems. He should be concerned, but he's too dumb to notice.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  18. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    AZ Nomad wrote:

    > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:43:30 +0100, Peter Köhlmann
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Hadron wrote:

    >
    >>> William Poaster writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2007-11-21, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> So what you meant then is that you find the level of fragmentation and
    >>>>>> typical performance of a fragmented linux filesystem to be acceptable.
    >>>>>> Or perhaps you're saying that you don't feel the need to defragment.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That's a subjective argument. I'm sure many people don't "need" to
    >>>>>> ever defragment a Windows OS either.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Unless they want it to run worth a crap. Or perhaps they're having
    >>>>> someone else do it. Or maybe it doesn't stand up to malware and bitrot
    >>>>> long enough for them to see deficinecies caused by fragmentation.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I used a program to defrag (called 'defrag') on linux a long, long time
    >>>>> ago. I thought I needed it. Since I stopped using it I've seen zero
    >>>>> difference in performance between using it and not using it.
    >>>>
    >>>> There is a linux defragging application which is about 10 years old, &
    >>>> only used on ext2 fs. It's never been updated, as it is simply not
    >>>> needed.
    >>>>
    >>>>> I've seen the previous system (500MHz, 384M) report fragmentation of
    >>>>> more than 25% since then. Probably higher, but that's the ballpark
    >>>>> number I remember. I've had no slowdown that I could detect. If I
    >>>>> allowed the Windows machine (1.7GHz, 512M) at work to get to that level
    >>>>> it would take forever just to open the defrag program to fix it.
    >>>>
    >>>> Unlike windoze, there is NO defragment application for ext3 or Reiser
    >>>> journaled filesystems.
    >>>>
    >>>> Here's why linux doesn't need it:
    >>>>

    >>http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ind..._defragmenting.
    >>>
    >>> Poor, poor Willy. Quite the monkey boy.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/qna/15032.html

    >
    >>/quote from that site
    >>Q:
    >>When I was using Windows, I had to run a defragmentation program quite often
    >>to speed up my computer. Where do I do this in Linux?

    >
    >>A:
    >>Unlike Windows' filesystems, most filesystems that run on Linux have no need
    >>of being defragemented because they prevent fragments from occurring in the
    >>first place.

    >
    >>If you use the default filesystem (ReiserFS), you'll never have to
    >>defragment your hard drive as long as you use it.
    >>/unquote

    >
    > You used the word Reiser. Cue hadron for a kneejerk ad hominem.


    ext3 doesn't need it either.

    The only degfrag application made was for the old ext2 filesystem (an offline
    defragmenter e2defrag) & it won't work for ext3 or ReiserFS which are
    *journalled* file systems.
    The ext3 filesystem is commonly used by default in a lot of Linux filesystems.
    Others use ReiserFS by default.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  19. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:20:12 +0000, William Poaster wrote:


    >AZ Nomad wrote:


    >> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:43:30 +0100, Peter KŲhlmann
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Hadron wrote:

    >>
    >>>> William Poaster writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2007-11-21, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> So what you meant then is that you find the level of fragmentation and
    >>>>>>> typical performance of a fragmented linux filesystem to be acceptable.
    >>>>>>> Or perhaps you're saying that you don't feel the need to defragment.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> That's a subjective argument. I'm sure many people don't "need" to
    >>>>>>> ever defragment a Windows OS either.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Unless they want it to run worth a crap. Or perhaps they're having
    >>>>>> someone else do it. Or maybe it doesn't stand up to malware and bitrot
    >>>>>> long enough for them to see deficinecies caused by fragmentation.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I used a program to defrag (called 'defrag') on linux a long, long time
    >>>>>> ago. I thought I needed it. Since I stopped using it I've seen zero
    >>>>>> difference in performance between using it and not using it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There is a linux defragging application which is about 10 years old, &
    >>>>> only used on ext2 fs. It's never been updated, as it is simply not
    >>>>> needed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I've seen the previous system (500MHz, 384M) report fragmentation of
    >>>>>> more than 25% since then. Probably higher, but that's the ballpark
    >>>>>> number I remember. I've had no slowdown that I could detect. If I
    >>>>>> allowed the Windows machine (1.7GHz, 512M) at work to get to that level
    >>>>>> it would take forever just to open the defrag program to fix it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Unlike windoze, there is NO defragment application for ext3 or Reiser
    >>>>> journaled filesystems.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Here's why linux doesn't need it:
    >>>>>
    >>>http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ind..._defragmenting.
    >>>>
    >>>> Poor, poor Willy. Quite the monkey boy.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/qna/15032.html

    >>
    >>>/quote from that site
    >>>Q:
    >>>When I was using Windows, I had to run a defragmentation program quite often
    >>>to speed up my computer. Where do I do this in Linux?

    >>
    >>>A:
    >>>Unlike Windows' filesystems, most filesystems that run on Linux have no need
    >>>of being defragemented because they prevent fragments from occurring in the
    >>>first place.

    >>
    >>>If you use the default filesystem (ReiserFS), you'll never have to
    >>>defragment your hard drive as long as you use it.
    >>>/unquote

    >>
    >> You used the word Reiser. Cue hadron for a kneejerk ad hominem.


    >ext3 doesn't need it either.


    No modern file system needs defragmentation. Why the **** NTFS should need it
    is beyond me. I suspect it has a mountain of old FAT code in it.

    And by "modern" I mean a file system using technology newer than the early 70's.


  20. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "William Poaster" wrote \> Here's why linux doesn't
    >> need it:
    >>>

    >

    http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ind..._defragmenting
    > \
    >>
    >> Why does Linux need defragmenting
    >>
    >> http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2270

    >
    > /quote
    > This so often repeated myth is getting so old and so boring. And untrue.
    > Linux doesn't need defragmenting, because its filesystem handling is not so
    > stupid like when using several decades old FAT
    > /unquote
    >
    > Nice selfnuke
    >
    > But then, you are "linux-sux". Nobody is as stupid as you are. Not even
    > OxRetard


    Well certainly Quack is as stupid, because he didn't read the article either!

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 LastLast