Printable View
I differ greatly with what 8trak said.
FAT is actually faster than EXT2FS if the drive was defraged recently. EXT2FS becomes much better relative to FAT as writes and rewrites go on. If I had to recommend a static server drive..say for backup purposes then FAT would be the best. But for everyday heavy usage then it inhales violently.
Ah, the joy of abstract statements with no supporting data! The revelry, the excitement!Quote:
Originally posted by 8trak
Ah yes,
Take a look at FAT!!!!
Fat12, 16, 32, whatever one, i dont care!
know why?! because they all suck!
No, but the downside is that Linux lacks the same amount of standardization. What would Linux do if Linus died suddenly? :DQuote:
Windows is tied to a single company which could fail, look at Union Carbide!
Linux doesnt have that problem!
It depends on who wrote the programs, just like in *nix!! Some people add command-line functionality, some don't! As for moving data you have a backup.... copy... paste...Quote:
In windows, you cannot pipe data between the graphical programs. for example, tryto make windows find files starting with T, sort them chronologically and have it all done on wednesday morning at 3:00.
Do it without writing a new program.
In linux it would be rather easy by comparison.
As for finding all files starting with T (I ASSUME you mean the filename) and sorting them chronologically (Last modified, or Created?) and having them done on Wednesday Morning at 3:00...
At 2:45... Click Start. Click Find. Click "Files or Folders", enter in 'T*', click SEARCH, when done, click the 'Last Modified' tab.
'sence' makes no sense. Furthermore, if they are Idle so much, why should they be forced to be 'Idle-er' when they are not fully Idle?Quote:
And Processes dont get punished by how long they have been running!!! They get punished by how long they have been idle!
Which makes complete sence!
What about Windows NT/2000? Legacy Dos? It just emulates dos.Quote:
Windows is restricted completely by legacy dos hardware emulation. Linux of course is not.
Linux isn't limited by legacy dos, of course, silly. It's limited by conventions of *nix, because it is based on it, and if you changed it too much people would say it wasn't linux.
I suppose you *could* set up an OS which uses two processors, each handling a different program, neither program interacting with each other. (Add RAID arrays... hmm...) Hence, you are running two tasks at once. The word 'Multi-tasking' makes sense in that context, if freed from encumbering connotations from early computers. Who says they both must be working on the same program? They *can*, but could be made to work independently as well. Each processor is not multitasking, but as a unit, the computer and OS are multitasking...Quote:
By your definition, you can only have as many concurrent tasks as you have processors, but there is a problem with this as well, because multiple processors multitask exactly the same as one processor does.
EDIT: Fixed quotes and bold tags
That's interesting. He refers to Linux as a cancer, but it's HIS company that has the PC market by the balls. Can you say "hypocrite"?
Supporting data? Do you think fat is a good file system? Maybe you could supply some supporting data to that statement.Quote:
Ah, the joy of abstract statements with no supporting data! The revelry, the excitement!
Do you really think the os linux is entirely reliant on linus torvalds? Don't be ridiculous.Quote:
No, but the downside is that Linux lacks the same amount of standardization. What would Linux do if Linus died suddenly?
What are these "conventions of *nix" that linux is limited by - explain please.Quote:
Linux isn't limited by legacy dos, of course, silly. It's limited by conventions of *nix, because it is based on it, and if you changed it too much people would say it wasn't linux.
Or you *could* use solaris/aix/hp-ux - the word "Multi-tasking" makes sense in that context.Quote:
I suppose you *could* set up an OS which uses two processors, each handling a different program, neither program interacting with each other. (Add RAID arrays... hmm...) Hence, you are running two tasks at once. The word 'Multi-tasking' makes sense in that context, if freed from encumbering connotations from early computers. Who says they both must be working on the same program? They *can*, but could be made to work independently as well. Each processor is not multitasking, but as a unit, the computer and OS are multitasking...
I assumed that that statement required no explination,Quote:
Ah, the joy of abstract statements with no supporting data! The revelry, the excitement
As mcevoy said, do you really think FAT is a good filesystem?
Take a look at fragmentation on a *nix box compared to a windows box.
Alright... this entire statement is insane.Quote:
As for finding all files starting with T (I ASSUME you mean the filename) and sorting them chronologically (Last modified, or Created?) and having them done on Wednesday Morning at 3:00... At 2:45... Click Start. Click Find. Click "Files or Folders", enter in 'T*', click SEARCH, when done, click the 'Last Modified' tab.
Have you ever heard of automation?
Of course you can perform those operations if your at the computer... haha...
As for the command line comment...
No windows programs can be usefully piped.
Unless you want all of the text output from a program to be piped into another program...
which is totally useless...
As for the multitasking comment...
The true definition of multitasking states that no extra hardware is used. It's the idea of performing multiple tasks by quickly switching the processor's state.
And this raid-array comment... What were you smoking?
Ever hear of RAM???
Whether or not your concurrently reading from multiple harddrives has nothing to do with multitasking.
And who says that i can't concurrently operate drives without a raid array anyways??
What if i have my cd-drive playing as well, that **** doesnt even touch your processor, how can you say that im not performing multiple tasks then???
Not that it matters, seeing as though none of that has anything to do with multitasking.
-8trak
Did I say I wasn't a hypocrite for occasionally saying vehement comments to a derogatory nature without saying much about why I mean them? I'm just as hypocritical as everyone else.Quote:
Originally posted by 8trak
I assumed that that statement required no explination,
As mcevoy said, do you really think FAT is a good filesystem?
What, it works, doesn't it? Windows is doing exactly what you said without any new programs! :DQuote:
Alright... this entire statement is insane.
Quote:
Have you ever heard of automation?
Of course you can perform those operations if your at the computer... haha...
You didn't mention that before, so hah! :D
You could always make one that took a command-line arguement to start in a console mode! For instance, many game servers can be started up in a text-only manner. As I said, it depends on who writes the program. Define "Windows Programs", all programs the run under windows? Wrong. Part of the OS? Then in a sense, it isn't a program, is it? It's part of the operating system.Quote:
As for the command line comment...
No windows programs can be usefully piped.
Uhm... What did you have in mind? You said: "In windows, you cannot pipe data between the graphical programs."... and now you say that piping text output from one into another is useless? Which statement do you mean? You are making a big deal that most programs running on Windows don't do it, and then say that it is useless to do? :confused:Quote:
Unless you want all of the text output from a program to be piped into another program...
which is totally useless...
And how would you know exactly what I was thinking by saying: "RAID Arrays... hmmm...."? I was just verbalizing my thoughts. Did I say you needed them? Did I say they would be necessary? What *did* I say that you are reacting to?Quote:
And this raid-array comment... What were you smoking?
Ever hear of RAM???
Quote:
What if i have my cd-drive playing as well, that **** doesnt even touch your processor, how can you say that im not performing multiple tasks then???
Actually, that might depend... What are you doing with that data on the CD? MOST audio cards nowadays have the little card<->cd cable to bypass any processing, but what if you are using a program to play the music, say, WinAmp? Are you going to tell me that isn't using your processor? What interprets your keystrokes or mouseclicks into commands to change the track, or to access a certain file on the CD (depending on type)? "How can you say that the processor is not being used then?" :confused:
:confused:
I said that no graphical programs can be piped, this is true.
The command line comment was for command line programs!
Alright, so im mentioning automation now!
God dammit man, you must have known what i meant!
Why do you ask questions that you ovbiously already know the answer to?
Also, I stated earlier that the 3:00 in the morning problem was to be done without any new programs.
and mabey i want to find files containg the word internet, or somthing or the like. In *nix, i could just use grep.
Not that it even matters, because that was just an example of some of the little things that make *nix more useful, and less of a pain.
You can play a cd without the rest of your computer.
Cd drives have handled their own audio since they became common. The programs have nothing/ very little to do with audio output from the CD drive.
If I'm playing a Cd, my processor could catch on fire, and as long as my power supply stayed on, the cd would keep playing.
Those programs do almost nothing.
-8trak
But there *are* graphical programs that can be started in a command-line mode, and you could certainly code one so that it dumps or recieves input from certain text files...Quote:
Originally posted by 8trak
I said that no graphical programs can be piped, this is true.
The command line comment was for command line programs!
But you concede that the processor *does* do CD-related work?Quote:
You can play a cd without the rest of your computer.
Cd drives have handled their own audio since they became common. The programs have nothing/ very little to do with audio output from the CD drive.
Whew! Can you hear that. Yeah that screeching noise. Oh, you want to know what it is huh. Well that is just the firealarm going off over your computer. Seems to me we have a flame war on our hands.
Why cant we all just get along and share IT security tips and advice like good little children.
Besides everything has a purpose or it would not be used, unless it is something strange like those spindles that can hold 50 CD-Rs when you only bought 30. Whats with that? Or that little indent on the back side of a floppy just above the labeling area to the right, bet you never noticed that before. FAT doesn't suck it just has it's purpose, just like windows. Hey even lamer newbies have a purpose. They are targets for more knowledgeable people to pick on about their total lack of cerebral function so the real hackers don't go around writing destructive virii to vent.