[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 ; "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message news:11170669.F3hhW5ievh@schestowitz.com... > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Finding the Fastest Filesystem > > ,----[ Quote ] > | I was amazed by the numbers. For all but one uniform subset of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

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

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


    "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    news:11170669.F3hhW5ievh@schestowitz.com...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > Finding the Fastest Filesystem
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | I was amazed by the numbers. For all but one uniform subset of tests,
    > XFS was
    > | the clear winner. I even tried synchronous mounts and encrypted volumes
    > as
    > | little "what if?" exercises, and XFS still came out on top. The
    > parameter
    > | that cost XFS a total victory was the CFQ elevator on a slower system;
    > ext3
    > | won most of those cases.
    > `----
    >
    > http://gus3.typepad.com/i_am_therefo...g-the-fas.html
    >


    Too bad that the winning filesystem (XFS) was developed by a closed-source
    proprietary company named SGI. (Silicon Graphics)


    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Finding the Fastest Filesystem

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | I was amazed by the numbers. For all but one uniform subset of tests, XFS was
    | the clear winner. I even tried synchronous mounts and encrypted volumes as
    | little "what if?" exercises, and XFS still came out on top. The parameter
    | that cost XFS a total victory was the CFQ elevator on a slower system; ext3
    | won most of those cases.
    `----

    http://gus3.typepad.com/i_am_therefo...g-the-fas.html


    Related:

    Serverwide Performance Benchmarking

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Based on my benchmark numbers I think there are a few statements that can be
    | labeled "conclusions":
    |
    | * * * Tuning your database performance parameters is the best way to improve
    | * * * *overall system throughput on a shared database and webserver.
    | * * * Except for the data-integrity focused filesystems like Ext3 in
    | * * * journalled or ordered mode, filesystem performance is pretty much not a
    | * * * major factor contributing to database and webserver throughput. *
    | * * * Enabling noatime does not make a big (over 5%) impact on filesystem
    | * * * performance for typical database and webserver loads.
    | * * * APC can give a measurable performance boost in PHP script processing,
    | * * * of course largely depending on the size of your scripts.
    `----

    http://www.ffnn.nl/pages/articles/li...nchmarking.php


    Linux Cure for Exchange Storage Bloat

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Users spend precious work hours copying e-mails to desktop PST files – which
    | may be backed up rarely or never – or other secondary e-mail storage systems,
    | copying them to their hard drives, or just deleting these important business
    | records. If an employee needs to reference an old e-mail, he has to remember
    | what it was called and where he filed it, then reload the PST file and search
    | for the message. The productivity hit can be huge, and there is no guarantee
    | the employee will actually find the critical information he is looking for. * * *
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | Modern Linux filing systems such as XFS and Ext3 leverage these optimizations
    | and support features such as journaling (to ensure hierarchy integrity
    | following a power cut), clustering and replication (DRBD), and snapshots (via
    | LVM). With modern e-mail server architecture, IT can complete backup
    | operations without requiring a freeze or a database snapshot. * *
    `----

    http://www.enterpriseitplanet.com/st...le.php/3696246


    Delve deep into drives

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Prabhakaran then goes on tracking bugs in all UNIX drivers, describing
    | inconsistencies and danger points, tracing the outline of a tougher file
    | system and then describing how to create an evolved file system that would
    | unite the advantages of most current file systems and overcome most of their
    | shortcomings. At the same time, he tries to describe how moving critical
    | logical pieces from the driver to the kernel (and therefore sharing this code
    | from one file system driver to the other) may make development easier and
    | faster while at the same time strengthening existing FS. * * *
    `----

    http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/...ep_into_drives


    ZFS, XFS, EXT4 Filesystems Compared

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | EXT4 is fast for metadata operations, tar, untar, cpio, and postmark. EXT4 is
    | much faster than the others under FFSB. EXT4 with hardware RAID and external
    | journal device is ludicrously fast. EXT4 seems to have a bad interaction with
    | software RAID, probably because mkfs fails to query the RAID layout when
    | setting the filesystem parameters. * *
    |
    | ZFS has excellent performance on metadata tests. ZFS has very bad sequential
    | transfer with hardware RAID and appalling sequential transfer with software
    | RAID. ZFS can copy the linux kernel source code in only 3 seconds! ZFS has
    | equal latency for read and write requests under mixed loads, which is good. *
    |
    | XFS has good sequential transfer under Bonnie++. Oddly XFS has better
    | sequential reads when using an external journal, which makes little sense. Is *
    | noatime broken on XFS? XFS is very slow on all the metadata tests. XFS takes
    | the RAID layout into consideration and it performs well on randomio with
    | hardware or software RAID. * *
    `----

    http://tastic.brillig.org/%7Ejwb/zfs-xfs-ext4.html


    OpenSolaris ZFS vs. Linux ext3 RAID5

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Few overarching conclusions can be drawn from the limited results of this
    | study. Certainly, there are situations in which the Solaris/RAID-Z
    | configuration appears to outperform the Ubuntu/RAID-5 configuration. Many
    | questions remain regarding the large discrepancy in CPU usage for small-file
    | operations. Likewise, the Ubuntu/RAID-5 configuration appears to perform
    | slightly better in certain situations, though not overwhelmingly so. At best,
    | under these default configurations, one can say that overall the Solaris
    | configuration performs no worse, and indicates that it might perform better
    | under live operating conditions. The latter, though, is largely speculation.
    `----

    http://www.prestonlee.com/archives/121


    Why so many filesystems for Linux? What's the difference?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | * * * EXT3 * * *
    |
    | * * * * * Most popular Linux file system, limited scalability in size and
    | * * * * number of files * * *
    | * * * * * Journaled * * *
    | * * * * * POSIX extended access control
    |
    | * * EXT3
    | * * file system is a journaled file system that has the greatest use in
    | * * Linux today. It is the "Linux" File system. It is quite robust and
    | * * quick, although it does not scale well to large volumes nor a great
    | * * number of files. Recently a scalability feature was added called
    | * * htrees, which significantly improved EXT3's scalability.
    |
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | * * * FAT32 * * *
    |
    | * * * * * Most limited file system, but most ubiquitous * * *
    | * * * * * Not Journaled * * *
    | * * * * * No access controls
    |
    | * * FAT32
    | * * is the crudest of the file systems listed. Its popularity is with its
    | * * widespread use and popularity in the Windows desktop world and that it
    | * * has made its way into being the file system in flash RAM devices
    | * * (digital cameras, USB memory sticks, etc.). It has no built in security
    | * * access control, so is small and works well in these portable and
    | * * embedded applications. It scales the least of the file systems listed.
    | * * Most systems have FAT32 compatibility support due to its ubiquity.
    `----

    http://kevin.hatfieldfamilysite.com/?p=104
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkh7tZcACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5oZQCbBDyXImD/bw5m5pWBK426AsFZ
    WqsAnApcqXVco8PHzOWUPdXLAWbVGDFH
    =0JxQ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

    Ezekiel wrote:

    >
    > "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    > news:11170669.F3hhW5ievh@schestowitz.com...
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> Finding the Fastest Filesystem
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | I was amazed by the numbers. For all but one uniform subset of tests,
    >> XFS was
    >> | the clear winner. I even tried synchronous mounts and encrypted volumes
    >> as
    >> | little "what if?" exercises, and XFS still came out on top. The
    >> parameter
    >> | that cost XFS a total victory was the CFQ elevator on a slower system;
    >> ext3
    >> | won most of those cases.
    >> `----
    >>
    >>

    http://gus3.typepad.com/i_am_therefo...g-the-fas.html
    >>

    >
    > Too bad that the winning filesystem (XFS) was developed by a closed-source
    > proprietary company named SGI. (Silicon Graphics)
    >


    The key word there is "WAS". You can find XFS in the kernel sources, GPL...
    Anyone can develope it now.... Anyway they desire...



    --

    Jerry McBride (jmcbride@mail-on.us)

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

    Ezekiel wrote:
    > Too bad that the winning filesystem (XFS) was developed by a closed-source
    > proprietary company named SGI. (Silicon Graphics)


    So what? The only piece of software in question is XFS itself.
    And guess what. It's open source.
    IBM is also a proprietory software company. They still manage to release
    some of their code into the open source.
    Sun is also a proprietory software company. They still manage to release
    some (quite a lot in their case) of their code into the open source.

    Did you have a point to make in that post or were you just throwing a
    tantrum?
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
    | in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
    | Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |

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

    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.

    >
    >>> 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.
    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*
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
    | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
    | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

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

    Andrew Halliwell wrote:

    >> Where do I get the code to zOS which
    >> runs on mainframes or even OS2?

    >
    >You don't, and why should you expect to?


    The lying POS wants to imply (again) that "advocates think that
    closed-source software is bad", which is, obviously, a lie.

    --
    "I mean, come on, what's more anti-competitive than free?" - Erik
    Funkenbusch


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


    "Andrew Halliwell" wrote in message
    news:fgr1l5-8b7.ln1@ponder.sky.com...
    > 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.


    I never said they need to open source "EVERYTHING" - that's your strawman
    not mine. So what products has IBM open sourced?


    >>
    >>>> 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.


    I never said they need to open source "EVERYTHING" - that's your strawman
    not mine. So what products has IBM open sourced?


    >>
    >>>> 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.


    I never said they need to open source "EVERYTHING" - that's your strawman
    not mine. So what products has IBM open sourced?



    > Besides which, they couldn't open OS2 even if they wanted to. Microsoft
    > shares copyright on large parts of it.


    So what's stopping them from open sourcing the parts they worked on and own?
    IBM continued developing OS2 on their own for several years after they broke
    up with Microsoft. No reason they can't open source those parts.

    > Or did you forget OS2 was a joint venture before microsoft sabotaged it?


    Ah yes... it's Microsoft's fault that OS2 failed. Funny how other than a few
    rabid anti-MS hate sites, there is no mention of this "sabotage" that
    Microsoft did. Of course IBM is the "poor innocent victim here" and
    Microsoft (which was about 1/5th the size of IBM at the time) was mean and
    treated IBM unfairly and it's all Microsofts fault that OS2 failed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2

    Several technical and practical reasons contributed to this breakup:
    a.. Differences in culture and vision: Microsoft favored the open hardware
    system approach that contributed to its success on the PC; IBM sought to use
    OS/2 to drive sales of its own hardware, including systems that could not
    support the features Microsoft wanted. Microsoft programmers also became
    frustrated with IBM's bureaucracy and its use of lines of code to measure
    programmer productivity. IBM developers complained about the terseness and
    lack of comments in Microsoft's code, while Microsoft developers complained
    that IBM's code was bloated.
    b..
    a.. Differences in API: OS/2 was announced when Windows 1.0 was near
    completion, and the Windows API already defined. However, IBM requested that
    this API be significantly changed for OS/2. Therefore, issues surrounding
    application compatibility appeared immediately. OS/2 designers hoped for
    source code conversion tools, allowing complete migration of Windows
    application source code to OS/2 at some point. However, OS/2 1.x did not
    gain enough momentum to allow vendors to avoid developing for both OS/2 and
    Windows in parallel. IBM's involvement was much more successful in
    redefining Windows' visual appearance after the 1.0 release, giving it what
    is today perceived as the "Windows 3.0 look".
    b..
    a.. OS/2 targeted the 80286 processor: IBM insisted on supporting the
    Intel 80286 processor, with its 16-bit segmented memory mode, due to
    commitments made to customers who had purchased many 80286-based PS/2's
    because of IBM's promises surrounding OS/2. Until release 2.0 in April 1992,
    OS/2 ran in 16-bit protected mode and therefore could not benefit from the
    Intel 80386's much simpler 32-bit flat memory model and virtual 8086 mode
    features. This was especially painful in providing support for DOS
    applications. While, in 1988, Windows/386 2.1 could run several
    cooperatively multitasked DOS applications, including expanded memory (EMS)
    emulation, OS/2 1.3, released in 1991, was still limited to one 640KB "DOS
    box".



    > *snip*
    > --
    > | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste!
    > |
    > | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and
    > |
    > | in | get out the puncture repair kit!"
    > |
    > | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf
    > |



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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

    chrisv wrote:
    > Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >
    >>> Where do I get the code to zOS which
    >>> runs on mainframes or even OS2?

    >>
    >>You don't, and why should you expect to?

    >
    > The lying POS wants to imply (again) that "advocates think that
    > closed-source software is bad", which is, obviously, a lie.


    Indeed. If it was bad, I wouldn't be using opera now.

    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
    | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
    | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

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

    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.


    --
    - "Actually XP *is* getting press, but most of it is along the lines of
    "we're going to wait and see", in other words not very good."
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

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

    Andrew Halliwell writes:

    > chrisv wrote:
    >> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Where do I get the code to zOS which
    >>>> runs on mainframes or even OS2?
    >>>
    >>>You don't, and why should you expect to?

    >>
    >> The lying POS wants to imply (again) that "advocates think that
    >> closed-source software is bad", which is, obviously, a lie.

    >
    > Indeed. If it was bad, I wouldn't be using opera now.
    >


    Any how many times do you petition them to open their code?

    --
    XP is a flop and when users are still asking for W98 it shows that they
    aren't all taken in with the MS hype.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

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

    Andrew Halliwell wrote:

    >>>> 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.


    The stupid asshole trolls never tire of proving how fsckwitted they
    are.

    NO ONE expects all the companies of the world to throw-open their
    doors and give all their source-code away. Not IBM, not Adobe, not
    ID. There's *nothing wrong* with writing a program, keeping the code,
    and selling it for profit.

    *Obviously*


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

    * Andrew Halliwell peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Ezekiel wrote:
    >> Too bad that the winning filesystem (XFS) was developed by a closed-source
    >> proprietary company named SGI. (Silicon Graphics)

    >
    > So what? The only piece of software in question is XFS itself.
    > And guess what. It's open source.
    > IBM is also a proprietory software company. They still manage to release
    > some of their code into the open source.
    > Sun is also a proprietory software company. They still manage to release
    > some (quite a lot in their case) of their code into the open source.
    >
    > Did you have a point to make in that post or were you just throwing a
    > tantrum?


    Tantrum.

    --
    It would be illogical to kill without reason.
    -- Spock, "Journey to Babel", stardate 3842.4

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

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv

    wrote
    on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:36:05 -0500
    :
    > Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >
    >>>>> 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.

    >
    > The stupid asshole trolls never tire of proving how fsckwitted they
    > are.
    >
    > NO ONE expects all the companies of the world to throw-open their
    > doors and give all their source-code away. Not IBM, not Adobe, not
    > ID. There's *nothing wrong* with writing a program, keeping the code,
    > and selling it for profit.
    >
    > *Obviously*
    >


    This is where nuance could easily step in. Presumably IBM,
    a rather large company, would support open source in some
    of its operations, with others doing work for custom and/or
    proprietary work.

    Does Redhat give away everything? Does Gentoo? Should
    they be required to?

    This is also a double-edged sword, of course; Microsoft
    has already given away some of its code (a rather small
    XML editing tool whose name escapes me). Should we
    therefore hail it as a champion of open source? Probably not.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
    item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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

    Hadron wrote:
    >> Indeed. If it was bad, I wouldn't be using opera now.
    >>

    >
    > Any how many times do you petition them to open their code?
    >

    None. Why do you expect me to?
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
    | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
    | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

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

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andrew Halliwell

    wrote
    on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:00:48 +0100
    :
    > Hadron wrote:
    >>> Indeed. If it was bad, I wouldn't be using opera now.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Any how many times do you petition them to open their code?
    >>

    > None. Why do you expect me to?


    I forget who, but at least one of the Wintrolls suggests
    that a Linux advocate is being hypocritical if he even
    breathes near any Microsoft-specific tool while doing
    gainful employment... ;-)

    (Since I have to use Microsoft Exchange as an uplink
    server and VSS as a source code repository, I guess
    I'm guilty as charged. Oh well.)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional
    architectures I've seen in a computer system.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

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

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andrew Halliwell
    >
    > wrote
    > on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:00:48 +0100
    > :
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> Indeed. If it was bad, I wouldn't be using opera now.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Any how many times do you petition them to open their code?
    >>>

    >> None. Why do you expect me to?

    >
    > I forget who, but at least one of the Wintrolls suggests
    > that a Linux advocate is being hypocritical if he even
    > breathes near any Microsoft-specific tool while doing
    > gainful employment... ;-)


    DFS, iirc.
    Probably moshe and hadron too, seeing as they all seem to share the same
    braincell.

    > (Since I have to use Microsoft Exchange as an uplink
    > server and VSS as a source code repository, I guess
    > I'm guilty as charged. Oh well.)
    >


    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
    | in | suck is probably the day they start making |
    | Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |

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

    Andrew Halliwell writes:

    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andrew Halliwell
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:00:48 +0100
    >> :
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>> Indeed. If it was bad, I wouldn't be using opera now.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Any how many times do you petition them to open their code?
    >>>>
    >>> None. Why do you expect me to?

    >>
    >> I forget who, but at least one of the Wintrolls suggests
    >> that a Linux advocate is being hypocritical if he even
    >> breathes near any Microsoft-specific tool while doing
    >> gainful employment... ;-)

    >
    > DFS, iirc.
    > Probably moshe and hadron too, seeing as they all seem to share the same
    > braincell.


    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.

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

    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.
    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.

    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.

    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
    | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
    | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

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

    Andrew Halliwell writes:

    > 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.
    > 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.


    Examples of these lies please. And you the one that calls people "cunts".

    >
    > 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?


    "advocates". Not the advocates.

    >
    > Hmmm? You're the scum of the earth.


    Chuckle. You're too stupid to see the irony here.

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

    Verily I say unto thee, that Andrew Halliwell spake thusly:
    > Ezekiel wrote:


    >> Too bad that the winning filesystem (XFS) was developed by a
    >> closed-source proprietary company named SGI. (Silicon Graphics)

    >
    > So what? The only piece of software in question is XFS itself. And
    > guess what. It's open source.


    Yes, it's quite a victory for Free Software, isn't it?

    > IBM is also a proprietory software company. They still manage to
    > release some of their code into the open source.
    > Sun is also a proprietory software company. They still manage to
    > release some (quite a lot in their case) of their code into the open
    > source.
    >
    > Did you have a point to make in that post or were you just throwing a
    > tantrum?


    I'll take "throwing a tantrum" for a dollar.

    The Zek-tard's argument is entirely non sequitur. It'd be like claiming
    that the modern combustion engine has no value, because it was derived
    from those nasty old steam engines. Things evolve, they get better. The
    move towards Free Software is just part of that evolution. Obviously
    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?

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
    | armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
    | neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
    | technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    01:18:35 up 208 days, 21:54, 3 users, load average: 0.32, 0.46, 0.35

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast