Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #352338 > unrolled thread

Linux Technology

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Linux Technology vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 02:35 +0000
    Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:47 -0700
      Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-28 04:56 +0200
        Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:04 -0700
          Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-28 05:12 +0200
            Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:43 -0700
              Re: Linux Technology Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-28 09:59 +0000
        Re: Linux Technology Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-28 09:33 +0000
          Re: Linux Technology Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 04:15 -0700
            Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-28 13:50 +0200
              Re: Linux Technology Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-28 16:20 +0100
                Shut up rodent, Tricks are for Kids, NOT rabbits John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 12:31 -0700
                Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-28 23:16 +0200
                  Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 15:58 -0700
                    Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-29 09:30 +0200
                      Re: Linux Technology Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-29 10:24 +0100
                        Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-29 13:25 +0200
                        Re: Linux Technology GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-29 17:06 -0600
                          Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 02:14 +0200
                            Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 02:28 +0200
                              Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 02:58 +0200
                                Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 03:15 +0200
                                  Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 03:37 +0200
                                    Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 04:00 +0200
                                      Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 04:39 +0200
                                    Re: Linux Technology meat <meat.stretcher@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-30 13:29 +0000
                                      Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 15:51 +0200
                                        Re: Linux Technology meat <meat.stretcher@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-30 14:10 +0000
                                          Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-30 09:47 -0700
                          Re: Linux Technology Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-29 18:34 -0700
                            Re: Linux Technology GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-30 17:21 -0600
                            Re: Linux Technology GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-30 17:23 -0600
                              Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-30 19:33 -0700
                      Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 09:20 -0400
                        Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-29 15:44 +0200
                          Re: Linux Technology Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-29 08:32 -0700
                          Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 12:07 -0400
                            Re: Linux Technology Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 09:13 -0700
                              Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-29 18:50 +0200
                              Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 13:41 -0400
                            Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-29 18:24 +0200
                            Re: Linux Technology Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-29 22:09 +0000
                              Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 18:58 -0400
                                Re: Linux Technology Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-29 23:26 +0000
                      Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-29 10:40 -0700
                        Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-29 22:51 +0200
                  Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-01 16:11 -0400
                    Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-02 00:07 +0200
              Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-18 17:01 -0400
                Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-18 23:30 +0200
                  Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-28 10:10 -0400
                  Re: Linux Technology JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-06-01 22:00 -0500
                    Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-06-02 00:02 -0400
                    Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-06-01 21:28 -0700
                      Re: Linux Technology Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:29 -0700
    Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-28 05:07 +0200
      Re: Linux Technology vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 03:33 +0000
    Re: Linux Technology vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 03:13 +0000
      Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:42 -0700
    Re: Linux Technology John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 02:42 -0700
    Re: Linux Technology John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 02:43 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#352338 — Linux Technology

I miss the files in /proc/X/fd being hard links to the files they refer 
to, instead of symlinks.

In the old days, they were hard links, so you could rescue a file that 
had been deleted, just as long as a process still had the file open.

Still, /proc/X/fd is a handy feature to have, whether accessed from the 
command line or the gui.

-- 
 -v

You are deeply attached to your friends and acquaintances.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#352340

On 4/27/16, 7:35 PM, in article dodb7oF9pplU2@mid.individual.net, "vallor"
<vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:

> I miss the files in /proc/X/fd being hard links to the files they refer
> to, instead of symlinks.
> 
> In the old days, they were hard links, so you could rescue a file that
> had been deleted, just as long as a process still had the file open.
> 
> Still, /proc/X/fd is a handy feature to have, whether accessed from the
> command line or the gui.

Not familiar with this. Can you give an example of how you might use it?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352342

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 19:47:56 -0700
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/27/16, 7:35 PM, in article dodb7oF9pplU2@mid.individual.net,
> "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
> 
> > I miss the files in /proc/X/fd being hard links to the files they
> > refer to, instead of symlinks.
> > 
> > In the old days, they were hard links, so you could rescue a file
> > that had been deleted, just as long as a process still had the file
> > open.
> > 
> > Still, /proc/X/fd is a handy feature to have, whether accessed from
> > the command line or the gui.  
> 
> Not familiar with this. Can you give an example of how you might use
> it?
> 
> 

This is useful when referring file that changed name/moved under the
hood. That is to find out new name...
This information is lost when closing fd.
On OSX one can refer file by inode (.vol filesystem), though, which is
much more powerful.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352347

On 4/27/16, 7:56 PM, in article 20160428045611.49ea1294@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz"
<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 19:47:56 -0700
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/27/16, 7:35 PM, in article dodb7oF9pplU2@mid.individual.net,
>> "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> I miss the files in /proc/X/fd being hard links to the files they
>>> refer to, instead of symlinks.
>>> 
>>> In the old days, they were hard links, so you could rescue a file
>>> that had been deleted, just as long as a process still had the file
>>> open.
>>> 
>>> Still, /proc/X/fd is a handy feature to have, whether accessed from
>>> the command line or the gui.
>> 
>> Not familiar with this. Can you give an example of how you might use
>> it?
> 
> This is useful when referring file that changed name/moved under the
> hood. That is to find out new name...
> This information is lost when closing fd.
> On OSX one can refer file by inode (.vol filesystem), though, which is
> much more powerful.

Fair enough... thanks. Still does not give me a full understanding but at
least is a start. Also, I think, ties into what I show here:
<http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352351

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 20:04:21 -0700
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/27/16, 7:56 PM, in article 20160428045611.49ea1294@maxa-pc,
> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 19:47:56 -0700
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 4/27/16, 7:35 PM, in article dodb7oF9pplU2@mid.individual.net,
> >> "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
> >>   
> >>> I miss the files in /proc/X/fd being hard links to the files they
> >>> refer to, instead of symlinks.
> >>> 
> >>> In the old days, they were hard links, so you could rescue a file
> >>> that had been deleted, just as long as a process still had the
> >>> file open.
> >>> 
> >>> Still, /proc/X/fd is a handy feature to have, whether accessed
> >>> from the command line or the gui.  
> >> 
> >> Not familiar with this. Can you give an example of how you might
> >> use it?  
> > 
> > This is useful when referring file that changed name/moved under the
> > hood. That is to find out new name...
> > This information is lost when closing fd.
> > On OSX one can refer file by inode (.vol filesystem), though, which
> > is much more powerful.  
> 
> Fair enough... thanks. Still does not give me a full understanding
> but at least is a start. Also, I think, ties into what I show here:
> <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>.

On OSX one can refer file by inode. On Linux file name is used, but
program can use /proc/self/fd/.. to determine new name (which isn't
used by LO obviously). Yes, that's that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352360

On 4/27/16, 8:12 PM, in article 20160428051228.28f13c94@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz"
<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:

>>>> Not familiar with this. Can you give an example of how you might
>>>> use it?  
>>> 
>>> This is useful when referring file that changed name/moved under the
>>> hood. That is to find out new name...
>>> This information is lost when closing fd.
>>> On OSX one can refer file by inode (.vol filesystem), though, which
>>> is much more powerful.
>> 
>> Fair enough... thanks. Still does not give me a full understanding
>> but at least is a start. Also, I think, ties into what I show here:
>> <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>.
> 
> On OSX one can refer file by inode. On Linux file name is used, but
> program can use /proc/self/fd/.. to determine new name (which isn't
> used by LO obviously). Yes, that's that.

Thank you. Do you know of any programs on Linux which show behavior similar
to the OS X norm? Would like to play with this.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352389

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 20:43:55 -0700, Snit wrote:

> 
> Do you know of any programs on Linux which show behavior similar
> to the OS X norm? Would like to play with this.
>

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

The dumb fuck is interested in this tidbit of Linux technicality
which has no significant fucking utility whatsoever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352383

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:56:11 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:

>
> On OSX one can refer file by inode (.vol filesystem), though, which is
> much more powerful.
>

Does this imbecile imply that ASSX is better in this regard?

On Linux, a file cannot be accessed through its inode because
that would be a major security risk.

On Linux, to open a file, the kernel traverses the entire
directory tree to get the file name and this allows a determination
of the directory permissions.  Using the inode to open the file
would not do this.

Therefore, the Linux behavior is far better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352399

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 6:34:08 PM UTC+9, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:56:11 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
> 
> >
> > On OSX one can refer file by inode (.vol filesystem), though, which is
> > much more powerful.
> >
> 
> Does this imbecile imply that ASSX is better in this regard?
> 
> On Linux, a file cannot be accessed through its inode because
> that would be a major security risk.
> 
> On Linux, to open a file, the kernel traverses the entire
> directory tree to get the file name and this allows a determination
> of the directory permissions.  Using the inode to open the file
> would not do this.
> 
> Therefore, the Linux behavior is far better.

and slower...  But in a hostile environment Linux is better as no intruder likes to mess with its complexity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352409

Takuya Saitoh wrote:

> On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 6:34:08 PM UTC+9, Fabian Russell wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:56:11 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> > On OSX one can refer file by inode (.vol filesystem), though, which is
>> > much more powerful.
>> >
>> 
>> Does this imbecile imply that ASSX is better in this regard?
>> 
>> On Linux, a file cannot be accessed through its inode because
>> that would be a major security risk.
>> 
>> On Linux, to open a file, the kernel traverses the entire
>> directory tree to get the file name and this allows a determination
>> of the directory permissions.  Using the inode to open the file
>> would not do this.
>> 
>> Therefore, the Linux behavior is far better.
> 
> and slower...  

Are you really certain that you want to claim that?
OSX is by far the slowest OS of the 3 linux, windows and OSX.
Especially with its prehistoric filesystem HFS, which is as slow as a snail 
on tranquilizers
Windows is not that much faster, though.
And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times

> But in a hostile environment Linux is better as no intruder
> likes to mess with its complexity.

Idiot

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352460

On 28/04/2016 12:50, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Takuya Saitoh wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 6:34:08 PM UTC+9, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:56:11 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On OSX one can refer file by inode (.vol filesystem), though, which is
>>>> much more powerful.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does this imbecile imply that ASSX is better in this regard?
>>>
>>> On Linux, a file cannot be accessed through its inode because
>>> that would be a major security risk.
>>>
>>> On Linux, to open a file, the kernel traverses the entire
>>> directory tree to get the file name and this allows a determination
>>> of the directory permissions.  Using the inode to open the file
>>> would not do this.
>>>
>>> Therefore, the Linux behavior is far better.
>>
>> and slower...
>
> Are you really certain that you want to claim that?
> OSX is by far the slowest OS of the 3 linux, windows and OSX.
> Especially with its prehistoric filesystem HFS, which is as slow as a snail
> on tranquilizers
> Windows is not that much faster, though.
> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times

That old chestnut again? Seriously, I doubt in a blind test in accessing 
the same file from any of those filesystems you'd be able to tell the 
difference. So long as your pictures of lederhosen are delivered, a 
difference of a few milliseconds is going to be completely unnoticed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352520 — Shut up rodent, Tricks are for Kids, NOT rabbits

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 11:20:08 AM UTC-4, Desk Rabbit wrote:
> On 28/04/2016 12:50, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> > Takuya Saitoh wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 6:34:08 PM UTC+9, Fabian Russell wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:56:11 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On OSX one can refer file by inode (.vol filesystem), though, which is
> >>>> much more powerful.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Does this imbecile imply that ASSX is better in this regard?
> >>>
> >>> On Linux, a file cannot be accessed through its inode because
> >>> that would be a major security risk.
> >>>
> >>> On Linux, to open a file, the kernel traverses the entire
> >>> directory tree to get the file name and this allows a determination
> >>> of the directory permissions.  Using the inode to open the file
> >>> would not do this.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore, the Linux behavior is far better.
> >>
> >> and slower...
> >
> > Are you really certain that you want to claim that?
> > OSX is by far the slowest OS of the 3 linux, windows and OSX.
> > Especially with its prehistoric filesystem HFS, which is as slow as a snail
> > on tranquilizers
> > Windows is not that much faster, though.
> > And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times
> 
> That old chestnut again? Seriously, I doubt in a blind test in accessing 
> the same file from any of those filesystems you'd be able to tell the 
> difference. So long as your pictures of lederhosen are delivered, a 
> difference of a few milliseconds is going to be completely unnoticed.


Shut up rodent, Tricks are for Kids, NOT rabbits.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352531

Desk Rabbit wrote:

> On 28/04/2016 12:50, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Takuya Saitoh wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 6:34:08 PM UTC+9, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:56:11 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On OSX one can refer file by inode (.vol filesystem), though, which is
>>>>> much more powerful.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does this imbecile imply that ASSX is better in this regard?
>>>>
>>>> On Linux, a file cannot be accessed through its inode because
>>>> that would be a major security risk.
>>>>
>>>> On Linux, to open a file, the kernel traverses the entire
>>>> directory tree to get the file name and this allows a determination
>>>> of the directory permissions.  Using the inode to open the file
>>>> would not do this.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, the Linux behavior is far better.
>>>
>>> and slower...
>>
>> Are you really certain that you want to claim that?
>> OSX is by far the slowest OS of the 3 linux, windows and OSX.
>> Especially with its prehistoric filesystem HFS, which is as slow as a
>> snail on tranquilizers
>> Windows is not that much faster, though.
>> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times
> 
> That old chestnut again? Seriously, I doubt in a blind test in accessing
> the same file from any of those filesystems you'd be able to tell the
> difference. So long as your pictures of lederhosen are delivered, a
> difference of a few milliseconds is going to be completely unnoticed.

Those "few miliseconds" tend to add up quite fast. 
There is a reason OSX is so incredibly slow, and it is not the hardware. The 
OS is crap, and its filesystem belongs in the garbage bin, not on computers.

Windows isn't that much better, though. Its NTFS filesystem is also outdated 
and slow, just not as slow as HFS. Still, linux filesystems are faster up to 
10x the performance of NTFS. And those differences do matter.

There is a reason why linux runs circles around windows for similar tasks. 
OSX does not even need to apply

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352555

On 4/28/16, 2:16 PM, in article nftudr$jh4$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>>> Are you really certain that you want to claim that?
>>> OSX is by far the slowest OS of the 3 linux, windows and OSX.
>>> Especially with its prehistoric filesystem HFS, which is as slow as a
>>> snail on tranquilizers
>>> Windows is not that much faster, though.
>>> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times
>> 
>> That old chestnut again? Seriously, I doubt in a blind test in accessing
>> the same file from any of those filesystems you'd be able to tell the
>> difference. So long as your pictures of lederhosen are delivered, a
>> difference of a few milliseconds is going to be completely unnoticed.
> 
> Those "few miliseconds" tend to add up quite fast.
> There is a reason OSX is so incredibly slow, and it is not the hardware. The
> OS is crap, and its filesystem belongs in the garbage bin, not on computers.

There may be some truth to that (though you will never support it) but I
think the bigger issue is Apple ships their iMacs and minis with 5400 RPM
drives! That is insane!

> Windows isn't that much better, though. Its NTFS filesystem is also outdated
> and slow, just not as slow as HFS. Still, linux filesystems are faster up to
> 10x the performance of NTFS. And those differences do matter.

I would love to have you point to a reputable source to back that up.

> There is a reason why linux runs circles around windows for similar tasks.
> OSX does not even need to apply

Again, support would be AWESOME!


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352612

The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser snotted:

> On 4/28/16, 2:16 PM, in article nftudr$jh4$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>>>> Are you really certain that you want to claim that?
>>>> OSX is by far the slowest OS of the 3 linux, windows and OSX.
>>>> Especially with its prehistoric filesystem HFS, which is as slow as a
>>>> snail on tranquilizers
>>>> Windows is not that much faster, though.
>>>> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times
>>> 
>>> That old chestnut again? Seriously, I doubt in a blind test in accessing
>>> the same file from any of those filesystems you'd be able to tell the
>>> difference. So long as your pictures of lederhosen are delivered, a
>>> difference of a few milliseconds is going to be completely unnoticed.
>> 
>> Those "few miliseconds" tend to add up quite fast.
>> There is a reason OSX is so incredibly slow, and it is not the hardware.
>> The OS is crap, and its filesystem belongs in the garbage bin, not on
>> computers.
> 
> There may be some truth to that (though you will never support it) but I
> think the bigger issue is Apple ships their iMacs and minis with 5400 RPM
> drives! That is insane!


Idiot. I have a SSD in my Mac. Does it help? Certainly. Is it faster than 
with a HD? Naturally.

Is it anywhere the same speed as a linux box with a HD? Not nearly so. The 
linux box with a HD is *faster* on file access than the Mac with a SSD. 
Granted, this is a fast HD, not a crappy one like apple plugs into their box

And I run a linux box with the same model SSD, similar processor speed. The 
Mac gets *trounced* in file access times. The linux box is doing the compile 
of a *very* large project (more than 200.000 lines of source code) *3 times* 
as fast as the comparable Mac. The same is true when I boot linux on the Mac 
(I have it dualbooting). Linux runs circles around that shitty OSX

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352627

On 29/04/2016 08:30, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser snotted:
>
>> On 4/28/16, 2:16 PM, in article nftudr$jh4$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Are you really certain that you want to claim that?
>>>>> OSX is by far the slowest OS of the 3 linux, windows and OSX.
>>>>> Especially with its prehistoric filesystem HFS, which is as slow as a
>>>>> snail on tranquilizers
>>>>> Windows is not that much faster, though.
>>>>> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times
>>>>
>>>> That old chestnut again? Seriously, I doubt in a blind test in accessing
>>>> the same file from any of those filesystems you'd be able to tell the
>>>> difference. So long as your pictures of lederhosen are delivered, a
>>>> difference of a few milliseconds is going to be completely unnoticed.
>>>
>>> Those "few miliseconds" tend to add up quite fast.
>>> There is a reason OSX is so incredibly slow, and it is not the hardware.
>>> The OS is crap, and its filesystem belongs in the garbage bin, not on
>>> computers.
>>
>> There may be some truth to that (though you will never support it) but I
>> think the bigger issue is Apple ships their iMacs and minis with 5400 RPM
>> drives! That is insane!
>
>
> Idiot. I have a SSD in my Mac. Does it help? Certainly. Is it faster than
> with a HD? Naturally.
>
> Is it anywhere the same speed as a linux box with a HD? Not nearly so. The
> linux box with a HD is *faster* on file access than the Mac with a SSD.
> Granted, this is a fast HD, not a crappy one like apple plugs into their box
>
> And I run a linux box with the same model SSD, similar processor speed. The
> Mac gets *trounced* in file access times. The linux box is doing the compile
> of a *very* large project (more than 200.000 lines of source code) *3 times*
> as fast as the comparable Mac. The same is true when I boot linux on the Mac
> (I have it dualbooting). Linux runs circles around that shitty OSX
>
>

So no verifiable evidence, just your own claim again. Will you *ever* 
manage to back up one of your claims?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352644

Desk Rabbit wrote:

> On 29/04/2016 08:30, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser snotted:
>>
>>> On 4/28/16, 2:16 PM, in article nftudr$jh4$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
>>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Are you really certain that you want to claim that?
>>>>>> OSX is by far the slowest OS of the 3 linux, windows and OSX.
>>>>>> Especially with its prehistoric filesystem HFS, which is as slow as a
>>>>>> snail on tranquilizers
>>>>>> Windows is not that much faster, though.
>>>>>> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times
>>>>>
>>>>> That old chestnut again? Seriously, I doubt in a blind test in
>>>>> accessing the same file from any of those filesystems you'd be able to
>>>>> tell the difference. So long as your pictures of lederhosen are
>>>>> delivered, a difference of a few milliseconds is going to be
>>>>> completely unnoticed.
>>>>
>>>> Those "few miliseconds" tend to add up quite fast.
>>>> There is a reason OSX is so incredibly slow, and it is not the
>>>> hardware. The OS is crap, and its filesystem belongs in the garbage
>>>> bin, not on computers.
>>>
>>> There may be some truth to that (though you will never support it) but I
>>> think the bigger issue is Apple ships their iMacs and minis with 5400
>>> RPM drives! That is insane!
>>
>>
>> Idiot. I have a SSD in my Mac. Does it help? Certainly. Is it faster than
>> with a HD? Naturally.
>>
>> Is it anywhere the same speed as a linux box with a HD? Not nearly so.
>> The linux box with a HD is *faster* on file access than the Mac with a
>> SSD. Granted, this is a fast HD, not a crappy one like apple plugs into
>> their box
>>
>> And I run a linux box with the same model SSD, similar processor speed.
>> The Mac gets *trounced* in file access times. The linux box is doing the
>> compile of a *very* large project (more than 200.000 lines of source
>> code) *3 times* as fast as the comparable Mac. The same is true when I
>> boot linux on the Mac (I have it dualbooting). Linux runs circles around
>> that shitty OSX
>>
>>
> 
> So no verifiable evidence, just your own claim again. Will you *ever*
> manage to back up one of your claims?

To filthy scum like you, DFS or Snit Michael Glasser? 
All of you never back up your claims with anything verifyable.

Go playing on the highway, idiot

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352757

On 04/29/16 03:24, Desk Rabbit wrote:
> On 29/04/2016 08:30, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser snotted:
>>
>>> On 4/28/16, 2:16 PM, in article nftudr$jh4$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
>>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Are you really certain that you want to claim that?
>>>>>> OSX is by far the slowest OS of the 3 linux, windows and OSX.
>>>>>> Especially with its prehistoric filesystem HFS, which is as slow as a
>>>>>> snail on tranquilizers
>>>>>> Windows is not that much faster, though.
>>>>>> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times
>>>>>
>>>>> That old chestnut again? Seriously, I doubt in a blind test in
>>>>> accessing
>>>>> the same file from any of those filesystems you'd be able to tell the
>>>>> difference. So long as your pictures of lederhosen are delivered, a
>>>>> difference of a few milliseconds is going to be completely unnoticed.
>>>>
>>>> Those "few miliseconds" tend to add up quite fast.
>>>> There is a reason OSX is so incredibly slow, and it is not the
>>>> hardware.
>>>> The OS is crap, and its filesystem belongs in the garbage bin, not on
>>>> computers.
>>>
>>> There may be some truth to that (though you will never support it) but I
>>> think the bigger issue is Apple ships their iMacs and minis with 5400
>>> RPM
>>> drives! That is insane!
>>
>>
>> Idiot. I have a SSD in my Mac. Does it help? Certainly. Is it faster than
>> with a HD? Naturally.
>>
>> Is it anywhere the same speed as a linux box with a HD? Not nearly so.
>> The
>> linux box with a HD is *faster* on file access than the Mac with a SSD.
>> Granted, this is a fast HD, not a crappy one like apple plugs into
>> their box
>>
>> And I run a linux box with the same model SSD, similar processor
>> speed. The
>> Mac gets *trounced* in file access times. The linux box is doing the
>> compile
>> of a *very* large project (more than 200.000 lines of source code) *3
>> times*
>> as fast as the comparable Mac. The same is true when I boot linux on
>> the Mac
>> (I have it dualbooting). Linux runs circles around that shitty OSX
>>
>>
>
> So no verifiable evidence, just your own claim again. Will you *ever*
> manage to back up one of your claims?

Actually, he is right on this one.  Wifes new iMac has a 5400 rpm HD in 
it.  On startup it is very slow for whatever reasons.  Starting up Xcode 
on it ... may as well go get a cup of coffee and then come back.
The mac also slows down really bad over a week... then you have to go to 
the culprit-> email app.  Seems that it is always busy zipping logs to 
the user account deep down into the Logs directory.  After removing them 
the system comes back to its original sluggishness.  I really don't know 
what they did to El Capitan, but Snow leopard was a whole lot better on 
just a dual intel cpu.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352778

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:09:20 -0700
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/29/16, 4:06 PM, in article ng0p7q$b00$1@dont-email.me,
> "GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> >>>> There may be some truth to that (though you will never support
> >>>> it) but I think the bigger issue is Apple ships their iMacs and
> >>>> minis with 5400 RPM drives! That is insane!  
> >>> 
> >>> Idiot. I have a SSD in my Mac. Does it help? Certainly. Is it
> >>> faster than with a HD? Naturally.
> >>> 
> >>> Is it anywhere the same speed as a linux box with a HD? Not
> >>> nearly so. The linux box with a HD is *faster* on file access
> >>> than the Mac with a SSD. Granted, this is a fast HD, not a crappy
> >>> one like apple plugs into their box
> >>> 
> >>> And I run a linux box with the same model SSD, similar processor
> >>> speed. The Mac gets *trounced* in file access times. The linux
> >>> box is doing the compile of a *very* large project (more than
> >>> 200.000 lines of source code) *3 times* as fast as the comparable
> >>> Mac. The same is true when I boot linux on the Mac (I have it
> >>> dualbooting). Linux runs circles around that shitty OSX  
> >> 
> >> So no verifiable evidence, just your own claim again. Will you
> >> *ever* manage to back up one of your claims?  
> > 
> > Actually, he is right on this one.  Wifes new iMac has a 5400 rpm
> > HD in it.  On startup it is very slow for whatever reasons.
> > Starting up Xcode on it ... may as well go get a cup of coffee and
> > then come back. The mac also slows down really bad over a week...
> > then you have to go to the culprit-> email app.  Seems that it is
> > always busy zipping logs to the user account deep down into the
> > Logs directory.  After removing them the system comes back to its
> > original sluggishness.  I really don't know what they did to El
> > Capitan, but Snow leopard was a whole lot better on just a dual
> > intel cpu.  
> 
> The 54000 RPM drive is an insane choice.

For insane price, insane choice...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352781

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:17:28 -0700
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/29/16, 5:14 PM, in article 20160430021405.420bca84@maxa-pc,
> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> 
> >>>> So no verifiable evidence, just your own claim again. Will you
> >>>> *ever* manage to back up one of your claims?  
> >>> 
> >>> Actually, he is right on this one.  Wifes new iMac has a 5400 rpm
> >>> HD in it.  On startup it is very slow for whatever reasons.
> >>> Starting up Xcode on it ... may as well go get a cup of coffee and
> >>> then come back. The mac also slows down really bad over a week...
> >>> then you have to go to the culprit-> email app.  Seems that it is
> >>> always busy zipping logs to the user account deep down into the
> >>> Logs directory.  After removing them the system comes back to its
> >>> original sluggishness.  I really don't know what they did to El
> >>> Capitan, but Snow leopard was a whole lot better on just a dual
> >>> intel cpu.    
> >> 
> >> The 54000 RPM drive is an insane choice.  
> > 
> > For insane price, insane choice...  
> 
> I like Macs... but I have no defense for their drive choices. It
> really makes no sense in today's world. Even the idea that they run a
> bit cooler or quieter - you can deal with that in better ways.
> 
> 

Their drive choice is limited by fact that iMacs pac hdd into monitor
which means heat damage ... (my 2008 iMac has damaged monitor)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web