[News] Yet Another Benchmarks of Linux Filesystems (XFS Wins) - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Yet Another Benchmarks of Linux Filesystems (XFS Wins) - Linux ; * Homer peremptorily fired off this memo: > Zeke has "issues" with that, for some unfathomable reason. Maybe he's a > Luddite; maybe he's malevolent; or maybe he's just an idiot. Who knows? D. All of the above. -- If ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: [News] Yet Another Benchmarks of Linux Filesystems (XFS Wins)

  1. Re: [News] Yet Another Benchmarks of Linux Filesystems (XFS Wins)

    * Homer peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Zeke has "issues" with that, for some unfathomable reason. Maybe he's a
    > Luddite; maybe he's malevolent; or maybe he's just an idiot. Who knows?


    D. All of the above.

    --
    If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?

  2. Re: [News] Yet Another Benchmarks of Linux Filesystems (XFS Wins)

    Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Erm, exactly the opposite actually. The best way to advocate is
    >> welcome windows users and help them become acclaimatized. Not to
    >> insult them
    >> call them "wintrolls" and "windiots" and tell lies about BSODs and so
    >> forth. Its why are you a crap advocate.

    >
    > The only people I insult are the ones undeserving of common courtesy.


    You mean Homer, Spamowitz, 7, WRonG, Kohlmann, Gidget, Ramon Herrera, Dumb
    Willie, et al?



    > The ones who have abused this group for months (or years in some
    > cases)
    > The ones who do nothing BUT troll.
    > You, DFS, Eric, Raylopez, flatfish and his multitude of nyms,
    > clogwog, etc.
    >
    > Tell me, why do the people listed above deserve consideration in this
    > newsgroup? All ANY of them do is insult, lie, insult, lie, lie and
    > lie.


    You're lying right now, because you can't show a single lie I posted.


    > If someone asks for help, I help if I can. I even replied to lopez
    > with advice on many more than one occasion (for OTHER peoples benefit
    > rather than his after the first time)
    >
    > When's the last time you did ANYTHING in this newsgroup other than
    > side with the wintrolls or insult the advocates?
    >
    > Hmmm? You're the scum of the earth.


    You're a hysterical fool, spike.




  3. Re: [News] Yet Another Benchmarks of Linux Filesystems (XFS Wins)

    On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:26:25 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Andrew Halliwell writes:
    >
    >> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>> No, and why should you expect it?
    >>>
    >>> Because IBM is supposedly this big proponent of open source software, that's
    >>> why.

    >>
    >> They are. So what?
    >> Doesn't obligate them to open EVERYTHING.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>> Or how about DB2 or their xlC compiler?
    >>>>
    >>>> No, and why should you expect it?
    >>>
    >>> Because IBM is supposedly this big proponent of open source software, that's
    >>> why.

    >>
    >> They are. So what?
    >> Doesn't obligate them to open EVERYTHING.

    >
    > You're a slippery little wheener aren't you? You're beginning to sound
    > like Rick.
    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>> Where do I get the code to zOS which
    >>>>> runs on mainframes or even OS2?
    >>>>
    >>>> You don't, and why should you expect to?
    >>>
    >>> Because IBM is supposedly this big proponent of open source software, that's
    >>> why.

    >>
    >>
    >> They are. So what?
    >> Doesn't obligate them to open EVERYTHING.

    >
    > Very, very like Rick.
    >
    >> Besides which, they couldn't open OS2 even if they wanted to. Microsoft
    >> shares copyright on large parts of it.
    >>
    >> Or did you forget OS2 was a joint venture before microsoft sabotaged it?
    >>
    >> *snip*

    >
    > OS/2 was never sabotaged you moron. OS/2 was a wonderful piece of work
    > totally underfunded and under sold because others had already invested
    > in Windows in too many IBM departments. IBM dropped the ball. That and
    > refusing to see the importance of HW support for things like emerging
    > video card standards.


    IBM sunk OS/2 in part when they made each division autonomous and
    responsible for their own profits.

    The PC Division of course wanted to sell PC's so they pre-loaded Windows on
    them, not OS/2.
    This was a HUGE public relations gaff for IBM because companies asked the
    obvious question "if IBM doesn't even load OS/2 on their own machines, how
    good can it be?"

    The only major impact Microsoft had on IBM was with regards to the HPFS
    file system in that Microsoft would not all IBM to release a utility to
    convert back and forth between HPFS, NT and FAT at the time.
    IBM did have a tool available to employees though.
    That was big at the time although sounds silly these days.

    Of course Microsoft, will not allow IBM to open source OS/2.
    I doubt they will ever permit that.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2