Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4165 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] SuSE 8.2 -- What is the best file system?
- From: Anders Johansson <andjoh@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Apr 2003 21:44:41 +0200
- Message-id: <1050263080.1390.24.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, 2003-04-13 at 21:29, Nicholas Parsons wrote:
> This is indeed true. However how does this help a "normal" home
> PC user decide on a file system?
If by "normal" you mean a person without much computer knowledge,
someone who isn't able to digest the technical differences between the
file systems, then I'd guess most "normal" users wouldn't decide on a
file system at all. They go with the default. With SuSE that's reiserfs,
with Red Hat I believe it's ext3. They're both good enough for most
intents and purposes
> I don't run high performance
> graphics programs on my pc. Does this mean I definitely should
> not use XFS?
Not at all. It just means you're not part of the intended market for
which it was developed. You can use it anyway and get very good results
from it. I do.
> >Head down to your local library and check out a book called "On the
> >origin of species" by Charles Darwin. It may not be on the comp.sci.
> >curriculum yet, but it should be.
>
> This is certainly true for living organisms.
> I think software falls into a different category.
Only in the technical details. I believe the priciples still apply. Lots
of projects living and thriving will produce lots of different ideas.
The best of these ideas will over time evolve, possibly into still new
projects, each better than the ones that came before it. It's just the
nature of the beast. One single project only leaves room for one single
set of ideas.
Imagine yourself waking up in the middle of the night with a brilliant
new idea for a file system that would give 10 times better performance
than any other for one specific purpose. Should you not be allowed to
pursue that idea? Should you still be forced to solve bug #xxxxx in
ext3's bugzilla. That's not the way forward. Maintenance of existing
projects is needed and vital, but so is new projects with new ideas.
> Focusing
> all attention on one project instead of 4 or 5 would be much
> better for the software community in the long run.
No, in fact I think it's just the opposite. It may be better in the
short run, but in the long run I think it's the way to certain death.
> I mean what
> is the difference for a "normal" linux user between XFS and JFS?
With the above definition of "normal", none. All file systems work the
same way, they all use the same commands for opening, writing and
reading files.
But some day the "normal" user may take the next step, and find that
there are indeed subtle differences that - for a more advanced user -
gives one an advantage over the other. When that day comes, he'll be
glad he has the choice.
> This is indeed true. However how does this help a "normal" home
> PC user decide on a file system?
If by "normal" you mean a person without much computer knowledge,
someone who isn't able to digest the technical differences between the
file systems, then I'd guess most "normal" users wouldn't decide on a
file system at all. They go with the default. With SuSE that's reiserfs,
with Red Hat I believe it's ext3. They're both good enough for most
intents and purposes
> I don't run high performance
> graphics programs on my pc. Does this mean I definitely should
> not use XFS?
Not at all. It just means you're not part of the intended market for
which it was developed. You can use it anyway and get very good results
from it. I do.
> >Head down to your local library and check out a book called "On the
> >origin of species" by Charles Darwin. It may not be on the comp.sci.
> >curriculum yet, but it should be.
>
> This is certainly true for living organisms.
> I think software falls into a different category.
Only in the technical details. I believe the priciples still apply. Lots
of projects living and thriving will produce lots of different ideas.
The best of these ideas will over time evolve, possibly into still new
projects, each better than the ones that came before it. It's just the
nature of the beast. One single project only leaves room for one single
set of ideas.
Imagine yourself waking up in the middle of the night with a brilliant
new idea for a file system that would give 10 times better performance
than any other for one specific purpose. Should you not be allowed to
pursue that idea? Should you still be forced to solve bug #xxxxx in
ext3's bugzilla. That's not the way forward. Maintenance of existing
projects is needed and vital, but so is new projects with new ideas.
> Focusing
> all attention on one project instead of 4 or 5 would be much
> better for the software community in the long run.
No, in fact I think it's just the opposite. It may be better in the
short run, but in the long run I think it's the way to certain death.
> I mean what
> is the difference for a "normal" linux user between XFS and JFS?
With the above definition of "normal", none. All file systems work the
same way, they all use the same commands for opening, writing and
reading files.
But some day the "normal" user may take the next step, and find that
there are indeed subtle differences that - for a more advanced user -
gives one an advantage over the other. When that day comes, he'll be
glad he has the choice.
| < Previous | Next > |