Why Linux disks don't need defragmenting
For the Windows converts: http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2006/08/17/why_doesn_t_linux_need...
Very good article. Thanks.
On Monday 02 October 2006 09:56, Alexey Eremenko wrote:
Very good article. Thanks.
I thought it was obtuse. Anyone who understands linux file systems can understand the article but show it to your Typical Windows User and watch their eyes glaze over. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Monday 02 October 2006 23:26, John Andersen wrote:
I thought it was obtuse.
Anyone who understands linux file systems can understand the article but show it to your Typical Windows User and watch their eyes glaze over.
Actually, it was a very non-technical answer to a very complex question... and shouldn't glaze anyone's eyes over... and, the author didn't even touch on reiserfs (only using the size it needs instead of whole blocks for small fragments) and he didn't go into the fact that the operating system (kernel) keeps things cleaned up (moved around) with any technical verbage... And the bottom line is (for eye glazed windoze users) Linux users don't have to put up with fragmented file systems... whether they understand them or not. Windoze users on the other hand are doomed to live with fragmented up-time (slow systems), regular fragmentation related crashes, and defragmentation downtime... whether they understand file systems or not. As a side note, [ most opinionated ], many of those eye-glazed windoze users are American males who only use their computers to view porn and play games anyway... the only things that seem to open their glazed eyes are debauchery and fool-hearty idolatry. (most of them can't spell "file system") <sigh> -- Kind regards, M Harris <><
On Monday 02 October 2006 23:26, John Andersen wrote:
I thought it was obtuse.
Anyone who understands linux file systems can understand the article but show it to your Typical Windows User and watch their eyes glaze over.
That's because the typical Windows user is uneducated (Webster: ignorant) about computer stuff and usually doesn't give a s__t about learning, either. Windows is a tool to use like a hammer or a screwdriver and that is all they want to know. If it requires time out of their schedule to climb a learning curve, then forget it. From one who spends way too much time fixing their dumb-assed, self-imposed problems. Fred
Stevens wrote:
On Monday 02 October 2006 23:26, John Andersen wrote:
I thought it was obtuse.
Anyone who understands linux file systems can understand the article but show it to your Typical Windows User and watch their eyes glaze over.
That's because the typical Windows user is uneducated (Webster: ignorant) about computer stuff and usually doesn't give a s__t about learning, either. Windows is a tool to use like a hammer or a screwdriver and that is all they want to know. If it requires time out of their schedule to climb a learning curve, then forget it.
From one who spends way too much time fixing their dumb-assed, self-imposed problems.
I don't know that I'd be that harsh, but I think you're pretty much on target. From one who makes insanely good money fixing window users' problems.... :) -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
participants (6)
-
Alexey Eremenko -
Bruce Marshall -
Geoffrey -
John Andersen -
M Harris -
Stevens