Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #289318 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-12 21:03 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-04-13 13:00 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 500 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-12 21:03 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 19:34 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-13 05:21 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 21:51 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! taka0038@gmail.com - 2015-04-13 01:16 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 02:17 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 14:13 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 06:16 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 15:30 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 10:49 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 16:37 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 12:58 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-13 11:59 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:37 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-13 11:54 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-13 11:58 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:37 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 18:31 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 19:18 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 00:32 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 19:24 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 16:54 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-14 09:00 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 14:26 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 09:09 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 09:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Charlie Croyden <charlescroyden3@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 06:14 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 09:23 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 15:58 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 10:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 16:22 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 10:52 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 17:25 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 12:01 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 12:23 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 12:40 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 13:25 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-14 10:30 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 10:57 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 11:44 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 11:55 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 11:56 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 18:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 15:25 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 16:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 19:21 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 16:38 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 17:49 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 19:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 18:36 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 15:39 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 20:19 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 09:55 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 12:59 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-14 12:14 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 17:41 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-15 00:50 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-14 20:29 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 19:44 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-15 08:35 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 22:40 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 19:36 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-14 20:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-15 07:15 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 08:45 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 12:01 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 10:19 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 10:28 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 18:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 15:21 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 19:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-14 15:27 +0100
Does "Ezekiel" agree? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-14 10:07 -0500
Re: Does "Ezekiel" agree? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 11:20 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 12:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 10:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-14 10:02 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 12:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-15 00:55 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-15 14:14 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-15 17:19 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-16 09:03 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-16 09:05 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-17 11:00 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-17 08:59 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-17 15:28 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-17 12:35 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-17 18:45 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-17 14:47 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-17 21:27 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-17 21:05 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-18 11:12 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-18 10:23 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-18 17:30 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-18 08:42 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-18 17:50 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-18 09:15 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-18 12:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-18 12:45 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-18 14:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-18 20:28 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-18 15:24 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-21 11:25 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-21 10:48 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-21 08:44 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-21 12:50 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-21 12:05 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-21 12:37 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-21 08:44 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-21 08:30 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-21 11:40 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-21 12:42 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-21 07:18 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-21 14:37 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-21 09:54 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-21 12:05 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-21 12:46 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-21 13:41 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-21 14:53 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 12:22 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-21 16:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-21 13:58 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 14:04 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-23 22:31 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 21:36 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 01:28 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 20:56 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-21 14:51 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-22 08:06 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-22 09:20 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-21 23:11 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-21 18:28 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-21 18:54 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-21 21:00 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 10:09 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 12:44 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-23 23:24 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 01:19 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-23 21:42 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 21:03 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-23 22:41 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:41 -0600
Then how come the landfill is full of tossed out Linux dvds? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:40 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 09:44 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-23 22:38 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 09:05 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 11:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 12:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-25 09:19 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-25 11:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 08:58 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 09:14 -0400
FUD #3! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:39 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 09:37 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-21 20:21 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-21 20:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-22 07:19 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 10:13 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 11:29 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-23 05:57 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 11:29 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 12:49 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-23 12:06 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 13:39 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 08:49 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 17:41 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 09:48 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 09:16 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 16:31 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 20:13 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 14:56 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-25 00:10 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 15:16 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-25 00:21 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 15:28 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-27 10:08 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 08:59 -0700
Oh, like your lies? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-04-27 11:08 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-23 07:04 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 12:11 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 08:50 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 11:36 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-23 11:54 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 12:16 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-23 06:49 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 13:45 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 17:43 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 17:39 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 12:45 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 18:22 +0000
LOL!!! Will it replace your missing braincell? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:38 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 01:21 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 09:51 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 08:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 15:33 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 17:25 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 08:48 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 12:46 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 10:21 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 10:01 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 09:26 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 08:59 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 10:36 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-24 13:45 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 11:24 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 14:34 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 17:44 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 20:14 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 12:42 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 09:52 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 10:12 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 10:03 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 08:42 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 20:42 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-21 13:59 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-21 17:05 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 10:05 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 11:28 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 17:37 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 11:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 20:13 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 18:25 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-23 15:39 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 01:26 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 18:40 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:37 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 10:12 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:32 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 01:32 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 10:14 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 10:29 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 11:16 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 12:27 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 13:17 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 16:09 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-25 09:17 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-25 13:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 09:08 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-27 06:41 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 16:00 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 09:12 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 12:26 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 17:41 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 14:58 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 18:20 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 15:30 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 15:59 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 18:25 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-25 09:18 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-25 11:07 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 10:05 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 11:32 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-24 06:38 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 13:15 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 14:38 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-24 09:08 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-24 12:10 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 20:16 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 22:45 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 07:59 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 20:15 +0000
RonB: Obsessed with Apple and windows for over 20 years. Get a life. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 15:57 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 09:28 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-24 06:46 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 20:11 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 12:41 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 09:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 12:40 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 09:05 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 16:37 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 13:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-27 07:27 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 08:48 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 16:40 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-27 10:04 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 16:43 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-27 18:22 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 09:36 -0700
More ignorance and FUD by you. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:30 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-23 14:38 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 20:46 -0500
Real UNIX works properly. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:29 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 12:36 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 22:42 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 01:19 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-23 21:40 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 21:01 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 22:34 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:29 -0600
More FUD. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:28 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 10:16 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 11:28 +0200
Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-24 06:02 -0400
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 11:23 +0100
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 13:21 +0200
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-27 10:12 -0500
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 16:46 +0100
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 13:15 -0400
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-27 16:06 +0000
No, you can't. You lie yet again. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-04-27 11:08 -0600
Quit lying, JED. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-04-27 11:07 -0600
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-28 07:31 -0400
FUD #2! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:27 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-23 22:32 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 12:48 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 18:20 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 13:25 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 22:41 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 13:58 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 23:00 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 14:08 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 23:17 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 14:42 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-23 20:23 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 18:17 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 01:18 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 18:27 -0700
But where is your life? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:26 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 20:49 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 02:41 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 19:50 -0700
Yet windows is CERNS new default OS. LOL!!! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:26 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 11:42 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-27 10:40 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 09:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-27 12:44 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 09:49 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-27 16:54 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 10:07 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-27 12:23 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-27 19:31 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 10:45 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 10:45 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 17:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 14:32 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 17:59 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-27 18:25 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 17:27 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-28 00:05 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 17:23 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-28 09:04 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 07:53 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-28 07:06 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 08:48 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-28 20:42 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 11:51 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-28 14:02 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-28 13:16 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 14:16 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-29 07:46 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-29 08:03 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-28 00:07 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 17:21 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-28 10:23 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-28 06:21 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 08:07 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 07:50 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-27 13:24 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 11:51 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-27 19:33 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 12:52 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-27 19:31 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 19:50 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-27 20:02 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 20:07 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-27 20:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 20:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-27 20:23 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 20:28 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-27 20:38 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 18:14 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-28 12:46 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 11:25 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-04-28 12:51 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-28 20:01 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-28 20:37 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 19:15 -0700
What way is that, Turdv? Viewing porn? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-04-27 11:10 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 01:13 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 18:30 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:25 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 11:46 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-24 07:03 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 08:51 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 20:31 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 12:49 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-27 10:07 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 13:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 12:43 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 09:01 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 20:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 18:19 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 11:48 +0100
More FUD! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:24 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:24 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 10:19 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 11:24 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-24 10:49 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 11:49 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-24 06:10 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 11:53 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-24 07:06 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-24 12:08 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 09:58 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 12:50 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-27 10:00 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-27 10:33 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 16:58 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 12:56 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-21 12:39 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-18 16:18 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-19 11:04 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-19 18:50 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-19 16:48 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 09:43 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-20 18:47 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 10:20 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-20 21:10 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-20 12:18 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-20 17:10 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-20 14:20 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 19:28 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-20 12:31 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-20 15:37 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-20 12:55 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-20 17:07 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-20 11:31 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-18 15:17 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 00:30 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-19 17:49 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-20 09:49 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-20 08:13 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-20 11:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-20 08:22 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 09:52 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-18 12:05 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-17 12:43 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-17 08:28 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-16 09:26 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-16 11:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 15:02 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-16 08:08 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 08:29 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 09:04 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 23:35 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 19:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 18:00 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 23:16 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 18:00 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 08:59 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 14:11 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 10:48 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 16:41 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 12:59 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 19:25 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 14:18 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-13 21:55 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 16:48 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:26 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 10:50 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:31 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 14:46 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 18:16 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 16:53 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 08:51 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-13 11:56 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 11:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:32 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 14:45 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 18:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 16:50 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-13 20:15 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 08:51 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 08:06 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 12:52 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 10:56 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 20:45 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 12:07 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 21:43 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 12:58 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 22:08 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 13:34 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 13:31 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:35 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 14:43 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 18:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 18:30 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 00:35 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 18:39 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 00:49 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 18:50 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-13 23:11 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-13 23:08 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 23:37 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 17:59 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 19:40 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 19:16 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 16:43 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 13:00 -0400
Page 25 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 12:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D1516DE5.4A144%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #289469 |
On 4/13/15, 12:43 PM, in article mgh67d$v9e$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/15, 11:45 AM, in article mgh2r9$h17$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/13/15, 9:52 AM, in article mggs5o$ipb$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer"
>>>> <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple most likely won't ever use it. They might inspire themselves
>>>>>>> off of it to make their own filesystem but I just don't see them
>>>>>>> using an open-source filesystem, especially since these tend to
>>>>>>> continuously evolve and potentially break things along the way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, they would need something that works with Time Machine... unless
>>>>>> they kept Time Machine on its current file system for now. As it is
>>>>>> they have HFS+ set up a bit differently for it than for the main drive
>>>>>> (I think).
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to adapt their Time Machine
>>>>> hardware and software to be used on an open-source filesystem. Nothing
>>>>> is set in stone the way I see it.
>>>>
>>>> They could - but right now Time Machine uses hard linked directories.
>>>> This is something that is generally *not* allowed on Linux / UNIX
>>>> systems but it makes it so Time Machine can be much more efficient. A
>>>> good write up of it is here:
>>>>
>>>> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5/14/>
>>>> -----
>>>> Time Machine goes one step further. Historically, Unix has only
>>>> allowed hard links to files. In Leopard, Apple has included the
>>>> ability to make hard links to directories. This has not been
>>>> allowed in Unix because it can lead to all sorts of very nasty
>>>> infinite loops during file look-ups. Of course, symbolic links can
>>>> create loops too, but they're a lot easier to detect and prevent
>>>> since symbolic links are easily distinguished from normal files.
>>>> But as discussed earlier, every file is essentially a hard link,
>>>> and all hard links have equal standing in the eyes of the OS,
>>>> making loop detection a bit trickier.
>>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, the benefits for Time Machine were substantial
>>>> enough for Apple to (carefully) add this ability to Leopard. For
>>>> example, if the entire /System directory has not changed since the
>>>> last backup, Time Machine just has to make a single hard link to
>>>> that directory in the new backup folder. Without support for hard
>>>> links to directories, Time Machine would have to create 18,744
>>>> directories containing a total of 68,839 hard links to files
>>>> (using numbers from my /System directory).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, directories are small and hard links only take up the room
>>>> necessary for their directory entries (at minimum, enough to store
>>>> the name and a pointer to the data on disk), but those bytes add
>>>> up fast when you're talking tens of thousands of hard links being
>>>> created every time you want to do a backup. Hard links to
>>>> directories make this all much simpler and more efficient.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you actually learned something from my claim that hardlinks are
>>> dangerous
>>
>> That is from Ars Technica. Not you. And I read that well before we talked
>> here... and already knew of hard links before then.
>>
>>>> This capability, as far as I know, does not exist on Linux.
>>>
>>> Sure it does. It is just not allowed, the tools to create links will not
>>> create them for directories.
>>
>> So it exists but is not allowed. Um, that is not really existing.
>>
>>> *If* you knew at'least the most trivial things about unix in general, you
>>> would know that a directory in unix is also just a file.
>>
>> Nobody said otherwise. Nobody hinted otherwise.
>>
>>> It just gets a flag combination that denotes it as a directory instead of
>>> a normal file. otherwise it is a bog standard file. And hard links are
>>> made to files. Remove the test for directories in the ln-program, and it
>>> will make hardlinks to directories. With all of the possible nasties,
>>> which not just include infinite loops, but also complete data loss
>>> (remove a hard linked directory, and you will possibly lose *all* its
>>> content)
>>
>> Remove the *last* hard link.
>>
>
> You are truly the idiot you were always showing here.
> If you make a hard link to a directory, there is just a single copy of it
> with several entries in the iNode tables.
<http://goo.gl/Ccllc3> gnu.org
-----
Directories normally have at least two hard links; their . entry is
the second one.
-----
What do you think the first one is?
This is fun. :)
> All content in it exists only *once* and if you remove a file in a
> hardlinked directory, it is *gone* and the second / third /x hardlink to
> that directory will not change anything about it, because they all point to
> the exact same directory.
Glad you figured this out.
> Gods, are you dense. You actually "teach" computing? All your "customers"
> should demand their money back with interest, because you are the most
> incompetent idiot in "teaching computers" out there. A demented cow would do
> that job better than you could ever hope
You figured out that I was right - remove the *last* hard link to a file and
it is gone. This is also true of directories (which as you noted are
actually just files anyway).
--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* 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>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 22:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgh7m6$62i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289470 |
Snit wrote: > On 4/13/15, 12:43 PM, in article mgh67d$v9e$1@dont-email.me, "Peter > Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >> Snit wrote: >> >>> On 4/13/15, 11:45 AM, in article mgh2r9$h17$1@dont-email.me, "Peter >>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/13/15, 9:52 AM, in article mggs5o$ipb$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >>>>> <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Apple most likely won't ever use it. They might inspire themselves >>>>>>>> off of it to make their own filesystem but I just don't see them >>>>>>>> using an open-source filesystem, especially since these tend to >>>>>>>> continuously evolve and potentially break things along the way. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, they would need something that works with Time Machine... >>>>>>> unless they kept Time Machine on its current file system for now. As >>>>>>> it is they have HFS+ set up a bit differently for it than for the >>>>>>> main drive (I think). >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to adapt their Time Machine >>>>>> hardware and software to be used on an open-source filesystem. >>>>>> Nothing is set in stone the way I see it. >>>>> >>>>> They could - but right now Time Machine uses hard linked directories. >>>>> This is something that is generally *not* allowed on Linux / UNIX >>>>> systems but it makes it so Time Machine can be much more efficient. A >>>>> good write up of it is here: >>>>> >>>>> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5/14/> >>>>> ----- >>>>> Time Machine goes one step further. Historically, Unix has only >>>>> allowed hard links to files. In Leopard, Apple has included the >>>>> ability to make hard links to directories. This has not been >>>>> allowed in Unix because it can lead to all sorts of very nasty >>>>> infinite loops during file look-ups. Of course, symbolic links can >>>>> create loops too, but they're a lot easier to detect and prevent >>>>> since symbolic links are easily distinguished from normal files. >>>>> But as discussed earlier, every file is essentially a hard link, >>>>> and all hard links have equal standing in the eyes of the OS, >>>>> making loop detection a bit trickier. >>>>> >>>>> Nevertheless, the benefits for Time Machine were substantial >>>>> enough for Apple to (carefully) add this ability to Leopard. For >>>>> example, if the entire /System directory has not changed since the >>>>> last backup, Time Machine just has to make a single hard link to >>>>> that directory in the new backup folder. Without support for hard >>>>> links to directories, Time Machine would have to create 18,744 >>>>> directories containing a total of 68,839 hard links to files >>>>> (using numbers from my /System directory). >>>>> >>>>> Yes, directories are small and hard links only take up the room >>>>> necessary for their directory entries (at minimum, enough to store >>>>> the name and a pointer to the data on disk), but those bytes add >>>>> up fast when you're talking tens of thousands of hard links being >>>>> created every time you want to do a backup. Hard links to >>>>> directories make this all much simpler and more efficient. >>>> >>>> >>>> So you actually learned something from my claim that hardlinks are >>>> dangerous >>> >>> That is from Ars Technica. Not you. And I read that well before we >>> talked here... and already knew of hard links before then. Nope. I explained it to you when you bragged about Time Machine I especially told you that it is extremely dangerous to use >>>>> This capability, as far as I know, does not exist on Linux. >>>> >>>> Sure it does. It is just not allowed, the tools to create links will >>>> not create them for directories. >>> >>> So it exists but is not allowed. Um, that is not really existing. It exists. Only the tools have been limited to not do it. That limitation can easily be removed, if someone would be stupid enough to follow apples suit >>>> *If* you knew at'least the most trivial things about unix in general, >>>> you would know that a directory in unix is also just a file. >>> >>> Nobody said otherwise. Nobody hinted otherwise. >>> >>>> It just gets a flag combination that denotes it as a directory instead >>>> of a normal file. otherwise it is a bog standard file. And hard links >>>> are made to files. Remove the test for directories in the ln-program, >>>> and it will make hardlinks to directories. With all of the possible >>>> nasties, which not just include infinite loops, but also complete data >>>> loss (remove a hard linked directory, and you will possibly lose *all* >>>> its content) >>> >>> Remove the *last* hard link. >>> >> >> You are truly the idiot you were always showing here. >> If you make a hard link to a directory, there is just a single copy of it >> with several entries in the iNode tables. > > <http://goo.gl/Ccllc3> gnu.org > ----- > Directories normally have at least two hard links; their . entry is > the second one. > ----- > > What do you think the first one is? > > This is fun. :) Fotr you it isn't fun at all, because you don't understand anything and have a hard time to play the "knowledgeable one" >> All content in it exists only *once* and if you remove a file in a >> hardlinked directory, it is *gone* and the second / third /x hardlink to >> that directory will not change anything about it, because they all point >> to the exact same directory. > > Glad you figured this out. > >> Gods, are you dense. You actually "teach" computing? All your "customers" >> should demand their money back with interest, because you are the most >> incompetent idiot in "teaching computers" out there. A demented cow would >> do that job better than you could ever hope > > You figured out that I was right - remove the *last* hard link to a file > and it is gone. This is also true of directories (which as you noted are > actually just files anyway). > You can't read at all. *All* files in a hardlinked directory exist only once. If they are not *additionally* hardlinked to a "standard" directory, they will be gone completely if you remove such a file in any one of the linked directory entries, no matter which one. They will vanish in all those directories at the same time. *That* is one of the reasons why hardlinked dirs are offlimits in a sane unix setup. It is way too easy to completely remove a file which the user thinks exist in several places, but because of the hardlinked directory only a single time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 13:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D1517649.4A14D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #289472 |
On 4/13/15, 1:08 PM, in article mgh7m6$62i$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
...
>>>>> So you actually learned something from my claim that hardlinks are
>>>>> dangerous
>>>>
>>>> That is from Ars Technica. Not you. And I read that well before we
>>>> talked here... and already knew of hard links before then.
>
> Nope. I explained it to you when you bragged about Time Machine
> I especially told you that it is extremely dangerous to use
And I noted that the danger exists for general usage but *not* for Time
Machine. Now if you can show *one* example of harm coming from the way Time
Machine handles this I am open to it.
One.
But you will fail.
How do I know? Because you *always* fail. It is your schtick. You make
claims you cannot back.
...
>>>> So it exists but is not allowed. Um, that is not really existing.
>
> It exists. Only the tools have been limited to not do it. That limitation
> can easily be removed, if someone would be stupid enough to follow apples
> suit
You cannot show any problems with what Apple has done but then claim it
would be stupid to do this on other systems. Amazing.
...
>> <http://goo.gl/Ccllc3> gnu.org
>> -----
>> Directories normally have at least two hard links; their . entry is
>> the second one.
>> -----
>>
>> What do you think the first one is?
Gee, no answer from Peter. He has no clue. He has no idea that all files are
hard links.
>> This is fun. :)
>
> Fotr you it isn't fun at all, because you don't understand anything and have
> a hard time to play the "knowledgeable one"
Peter Köhlmann:
-----
remove a hard linked directory, and you will possibly lose *all*
its content
-----
Snit:
-----
Remove the *last* hard link.
-----
Peter Köhlmann:
-----
You are truly the idiot you were always showing here.
------
You screwed up again, Peter. Pick your favorite link from this list:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22all+files+are+hard+links%22>
Really... all files are hard links.
...
>>> Gods, are you dense. You actually "teach" computing? All your "customers"
>>> should demand their money back with interest, because you are the most
>>> incompetent idiot in "teaching computers" out there. A demented cow would
>>> do that job better than you could ever hope
>>
>> You figured out that I was right - remove the *last* hard link to a file
>> and it is gone. This is also true of directories (which as you noted are
>> actually just files anyway).
>
> You can't read at all. *All* files in a hardlinked directory exist only
> once.
Not in contention. Does not matter if you have, as is the norm, two hard
links to the directory or if you have fifty.
Remove the *last* one and all the files are gone.
Seems you are at least on the verge of understanding this.
> If they are not *additionally* hardlinked to a "standard" directory,
> they will be gone completely if you remove such a file in any one of the
> linked directory entries, no matter which one.
Right. Good to see you are getting it.
> They will vanish in all those directories at the same time.
Multiple hard links to the same file (or directory, since directories are
files, too) are just that, multiple links to the same file. They do not
replicate the file (or folder) itself.
From a user perspective I can see where you would think there were multiple
files - but that is not what is happening "under the hood".
> *That* is one of the reasons why hardlinked dirs are offlimits in a sane unix
> setup.
Well, other than that *all* common Unix systems have directories, and since
all files are hard links, all directories are hard links.
But you will get this if you keep working at it. I have faith in you.
Who am I kidding. No, you will never admit to your errors. You simply cannot
show any sign of learning. When have you ever done so?
> It is way too easy to completely remove a file which the user thinks
> exist in several places, but because of the hardlinked directory only a single
> time
Do you think this happens with Time Machine?
--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* 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>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 13:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6fc1d86b-cc45-40d2-af7e-1d0444bc37fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #289462 |
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:07:10 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/13/15, 11:45 AM, in article mgh2r9$h17$1@dont-email.me, "Peter > Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > > > Snit wrote: > > > >> On 4/13/15, 9:52 AM, in article mggs5o$ipb$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" > >> <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: > >> > >>>>> Apple most likely won't ever use it. They might inspire themselves off > >>>>> of it to make their own filesystem but I just don't see them using an > >>>>> open-source filesystem, especially since these tend to continuously > >>>>> evolve and potentially break things along the way. > >>>>> > >>>> Well, they would need something that works with Time Machine... unless > >>>> they kept Time Machine on its current file system for now. As it is they > >>>> have HFS+ set up a bit differently for it than for the main drive (I > >>>> think). > >>> > >>> I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to adapt their Time Machine > >>> hardware and software to be used on an open-source filesystem. Nothing > >>> is set in stone the way I see it. > >> > >> They could - but right now Time Machine uses hard linked directories. This > >> is something that is generally *not* allowed on Linux / UNIX systems but > >> it makes it so Time Machine can be much more efficient. A good write up of > >> it is here: > >> > >> <http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5/14/> > >> ----- > >> Time Machine goes one step further. Historically, Unix has only > >> allowed hard links to files. In Leopard, Apple has included the > >> ability to make hard links to directories. This has not been > >> allowed in Unix because it can lead to all sorts of very nasty > >> infinite loops during file look-ups. Of course, symbolic links can > >> create loops too, but they're a lot easier to detect and prevent > >> since symbolic links are easily distinguished from normal files. > >> But as discussed earlier, every file is essentially a hard link, > >> and all hard links have equal standing in the eyes of the OS, > >> making loop detection a bit trickier. > >> > >> Nevertheless, the benefits for Time Machine were substantial > >> enough for Apple to (carefully) add this ability to Leopard. For > >> example, if the entire /System directory has not changed since the > >> last backup, Time Machine just has to make a single hard link to > >> that directory in the new backup folder. Without support for hard > >> links to directories, Time Machine would have to create 18,744 > >> directories containing a total of 68,839 hard links to files > >> (using numbers from my /System directory). > >> > >> Yes, directories are small and hard links only take up the room > >> necessary for their directory entries (at minimum, enough to store > >> the name and a pointer to the data on disk), but those bytes add > >> up fast when you're talking tens of thousands of hard links being > >> created every time you want to do a backup. Hard links to > >> directories make this all much simpler and more efficient. > > > > > > So you actually learned something from my claim that hardlinks are dangerous > > That is from Ars Technica. Not you. And I read that well before we talked > here... and already knew of hard links before then. > > >> This capability, as far as I know, does not exist on Linux. > > > > Sure it does. It is just not allowed, the tools to create links will not > > create them for directories. > > So it exists but is not allowed. Um, that is not really existing. Man on the street: Murder is not allowed. Snit: Then it doesn't really exist. What meds did you mix today, Snit ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 17:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mghcov$p05$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289441 |
On 2015-04-13 1:56 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/13/15, 9:52 AM, in article mggs5o$ipb$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" > <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: > >>>> Apple most likely won't ever use it. They might inspire themselves off >>>> of it to make their own filesystem but I just don't see them using an >>>> open-source filesystem, especially since these tend to continuously >>>> evolve and potentially break things along the way. >>>> >>> Well, they would need something that works with Time Machine... unless they >>> kept Time Machine on its current file system for now. As it is they have >>> HFS+ set up a bit differently for it than for the main drive (I think). >> >> I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to adapt their Time Machine >> hardware and software to be used on an open-source filesystem. Nothing >> is set in stone the way I see it. > > They could - but right now Time Machine uses hard linked directories. This > is something that is generally *not* allowed on Linux / UNIX systems but it > makes it so Time Machine can be much more efficient. A good write up of it > is here: > > <http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5/14/> > ----- > Time Machine goes one step further. Historically, Unix has only > allowed hard links to files. In Leopard, Apple has included the > ability to make hard links to directories. This has not been > allowed in Unix because it can lead to all sorts of very nasty > infinite loops during file look-ups. Of course, symbolic links can > create loops too, but they're a lot easier to detect and prevent > since symbolic links are easily distinguished from normal files. > But as discussed earlier, every file is essentially a hard link, > and all hard links have equal standing in the eyes of the OS, > making loop detection a bit trickier. > > Nevertheless, the benefits for Time Machine were substantial > enough for Apple to (carefully) add this ability to Leopard. For > example, if the entire /System directory has not changed since the > last backup, Time Machine just has to make a single hard link to > that directory in the new backup folder. Without support for hard > links to directories, Time Machine would have to create 18,744 > directories containing a total of 68,839 hard links to files > (using numbers from my /System directory). > > Yes, directories are small and hard links only take up the room > necessary for their directory entries (at minimum, enough to store > the name and a pointer to the data on disk), but those bytes add > up fast when you're talking tens of thousands of hard links being > created every time you want to do a backup. Hard links to > directories make this all much simpler and more efficient. > ----- > > This capability, as far as I know, does not exist on Linux. > >> If Microsoft was able to make its operating systems run on FAT32 as easily as >> on NTFS, I don't see why Apple wouldn't be able to modify something which is >> essentially a lot more trivial. > > Apple has done some things which are generally not "legal" on most file > systems - though how hard it would be for them to change these things or to > allow them on these other file systems I do not know. > > But, sure, they could. And even if it makes it where they have to make more > links, the speed would likely not be much of an issue because other file > systems are faster. The storage space benefits might not be possible on > other systems though. > > I will leave it to Peter to give a detailed explanation of how it could be > done as well on Linux... after all he is the expert. :) Peter the Klöwn's way of explaining things is to call whoever asked the question an idiot and telling them that they're not worth being used as fertilizer. Mind you, that's how the German education system works. The teacher does no such thing. His job consists of destroying all of your self-esteem and/or encouraging you to seek out the knowledge on your own. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 14:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D1518698.4A15D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #289486 |
On 4/13/15, 2:35 PM, in article mghcov$p05$3@dont-email.me, "Slimer" <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: ... >> This capability, as far as I know, does not exist on Linux. >> >>> If Microsoft was able to make its operating systems run on FAT32 as easily >>> as >>> on NTFS, I don't see why Apple wouldn't be able to modify something which is >>> essentially a lot more trivial. >> >> Apple has done some things which are generally not "legal" on most file >> systems - though how hard it would be for them to change these things or to >> allow them on these other file systems I do not know. >> >> But, sure, they could. And even if it makes it where they have to make more >> links, the speed would likely not be much of an issue because other file >> systems are faster. The storage space benefits might not be possible on >> other systems though. >> >> I will leave it to Peter to give a detailed explanation of how it could be >> done as well on Linux... after all he is the expert. :) > > Peter the Klöwn's way of explaining things is to call whoever asked the > question an idiot and telling them that they're not worth being used as > fertilizer. And then he makes a bunch of ignorant statements he never admits to. > Mind you, that's how the German education system works. The > teacher does no such thing. His job consists of destroying all of your > self-esteem and/or encouraging you to seek out the knowledge on your own. > -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * 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> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 18:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mghes1$4ga$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289492 |
On 2015-04-13 5:43 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/13/15, 2:35 PM, in article mghcov$p05$3@dont-email.me, "Slimer" > <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: > > ... >>> This capability, as far as I know, does not exist on Linux. >>> >>>> If Microsoft was able to make its operating systems run on FAT32 as easily >>>> as >>>> on NTFS, I don't see why Apple wouldn't be able to modify something which is >>>> essentially a lot more trivial. >>> >>> Apple has done some things which are generally not "legal" on most file >>> systems - though how hard it would be for them to change these things or to >>> allow them on these other file systems I do not know. >>> >>> But, sure, they could. And even if it makes it where they have to make more >>> links, the speed would likely not be much of an issue because other file >>> systems are faster. The storage space benefits might not be possible on >>> other systems though. >>> >>> I will leave it to Peter to give a detailed explanation of how it could be >>> done as well on Linux... after all he is the expert. :) >> >> Peter the Klöwn's way of explaining things is to call whoever asked the >> question an idiot and telling them that they're not worth being used as >> fertilizer. > > And then he makes a bunch of ignorant statements he never admits to. I'm sure that his family has never admitted to gassing the Jews either. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 18:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mghg1a$7f4$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289502 |
On 4/13/2015 6:11 PM, Slimer wrote: > I'm sure that his family has never admitted to gassing the Jews either. I asked Kohlmann what his parents/grandparents were doing between 1933 and 1945 and he refused to answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 00:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mghgaa$7dl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289512 |
DFS wrote: > On 4/13/2015 6:11 PM, Slimer wrote: > >> I'm sure that his family has never admitted to gassing the Jews either. > > I asked Kohlmann what his parents/grandparents were doing between 1933 > and 1945 and he refused to answer. Well, I did not ask you about the blacks murdered by your parents. But I am certain you would have refused any answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 18:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mghghm$7f4$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289519 |
On 4/13/2015 6:35 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > DFS wrote: > >> On 4/13/2015 6:11 PM, Slimer wrote: >> >>> I'm sure that his family has never admitted to gassing the Jews either. >> >> I asked Kohlmann what his parents/grandparents were doing between 1933 >> and 1945 and he refused to answer. > > Well, I did not ask you about the blacks murdered by your parents. But I am > certain you would have refused any answer. What a childish piece of crap response. I didn't accuse your family of being Nazis or murderers. I wanted to know what they were doing while the Nazis were in power. You ran away. Why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 00:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mghh33$b98$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289521 |
DFS wrote: > On 4/13/2015 6:35 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> DFS wrote: >> >>> On 4/13/2015 6:11 PM, Slimer wrote: >>> >>>> I'm sure that his family has never admitted to gassing the Jews either. >>> >>> I asked Kohlmann what his parents/grandparents were doing between 1933 >>> and 1945 and he refused to answer. >> >> Well, I did not ask you about the blacks murdered by your parents. But I >> am certain you would have refused any answer. > > > What a childish piece of crap response. You deserved every single bit of it. And lots more > I didn't accuse your family of being Nazis or murderers. You just implied it > I wanted to > know what they were doing while the Nazis were in power. You ran away. I did not run away. I simply refused to act in such an idiotic way > Why? Because you are an idiot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 18:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mghh65$bd4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289522 |
On 4/13/2015 6:49 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > DFS wrote: > >> On 4/13/2015 6:35 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> DFS wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/13/2015 6:11 PM, Slimer wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm sure that his family has never admitted to gassing the Jews either. >>>> >>>> I asked Kohlmann what his parents/grandparents were doing between 1933 >>>> and 1945 and he refused to answer. >>> >>> Well, I did not ask you about the blacks murdered by your parents. But I >>> am certain you would have refused any answer. >> >> >> What a childish piece of crap response. > > You deserved every single bit of it. And lots more > >> I didn't accuse your family of being Nazis or murderers. > > You just implied it > >> I wanted to >> know what they were doing while the Nazis were in power. You ran away. > > I did not run away. I simply refused to act in such an idiotic way You did run away. >> Why? > > Because you are an idiot Because you're hiding something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 23:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvbhd0.fjei@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #289523 |
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > On 4/13/2015 6:49 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> DFS wrote: >> >>> On 4/13/2015 6:35 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> DFS wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/13/2015 6:11 PM, Slimer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm sure that his family has never admitted to gassing the Jews either. >>>>> >>>>> I asked Kohlmann what his parents/grandparents were doing between 1933 >>>>> and 1945 and he refused to answer. >>>> >>>> Well, I did not ask you about the blacks murdered by your parents. But I >>>> am certain you would have refused any answer. >>> >>> >>> What a childish piece of crap response. >> >> You deserved every single bit of it. And lots more >> >>> I didn't accuse your family of being Nazis or murderers. >> >> You just implied it >> >>> I wanted to >>> know what they were doing while the Nazis were in power. You ran away. >> >> I did not run away. I simply refused to act in such an idiotic way > You did run away. >>> Why? >> >> Because you are an idiot > Because you're hiding something. He lashes out like a Nazi. Probably has an SS tattoo.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 23:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bvhhg83.fp@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #289519 |
Peter K??hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > DFS wrote: >> On 4/13/2015 6:11 PM, Slimer wrote: >> >>> I'm sure that his family has never admitted to gassing the Jews either. >> >> I asked Kohlmann what his parents/grandparents were doing between 1933 >> and 1945 and he refused to answer. > Well, I did not ask you about the blacks murdered by your parents. But I am > certain you would have refused any answer. So cut off fingers until he talks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 23:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mghjvo$mag$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289519 |
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:35:47 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > DFS wrote: > >> On 4/13/2015 6:11 PM, Slimer wrote: >> >>> I'm sure that his family has never admitted to gassing the Jews >>> either. >> >> I asked Kohlmann what his parents/grandparents were doing between 1933 >> and 1945 and he refused to answer. > > Well, I did not ask you about the blacks murdered by your parents. But I > am certain you would have refused any answer. This is the small-minded crap the "enlightened" Snit and his fellow WinTrolls and iCultists revert to when they're beaten in an argument. And they're beaten in arguments constantly -- so they're constantly reverting to small-minded crap. -- To WinDrones and iCultists obsessed with Linux. Get a life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 17:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D151B490.4A1BF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #289538 |
On 4/13/15, 4:37 PM, in article mghjvo$mag$2@dont-email.me, "ronb" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:35:47 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> DFS wrote: >> >>> On 4/13/2015 6:11 PM, Slimer wrote: >>> >>>> I'm sure that his family has never admitted to gassing the Jews >>>> either. >>> >>> I asked Kohlmann what his parents/grandparents were doing between 1933 >>> and 1945 and he refused to answer. >> >> Well, I did not ask you about the blacks murdered by your parents. But I >> am certain you would have refused any answer. > > This is the small-minded crap the "enlightened" Snit and his fellow > WinTrolls and iCultists revert to when they're beaten in an argument. And > they're beaten in arguments constantly -- so they're constantly reverting > to small-minded crap. Why assume I back that type of comment? I have never made such a comment and do not approve of it. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 19:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mghk3e$nrt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289519 |
On 2015-04-13 6:35 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > DFS wrote: > >> On 4/13/2015 6:11 PM, Slimer wrote: >> >>> I'm sure that his family has never admitted to gassing the Jews either. >> >> I asked Kohlmann what his parents/grandparents were doing between 1933 >> and 1945 and he refused to answer. > > Well, I did not ask you about the blacks murdered by your parents. But I am > certain you would have refused any answer. Tell me though, who did the Polish murder? -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 19:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mghimh$jlb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289512 |
On 2015-04-13 6:30 PM, DFS wrote: > On 4/13/2015 6:11 PM, Slimer wrote: > >> I'm sure that his family has never admitted to gassing the Jews either. > > I asked Kohlmann what his parents/grandparents were doing between 1933 > and 1945 and he refused to answer. Their official jon was to call the Jews idiots and say that they were about to be turned into fertilizer. That might be why Peter the Klöwn keeps saying similar shit. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 16:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mggo4d$bj$4@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #289318 |
On 13/04/2015 02:03, Slimer wrote: > <http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-40-ssd&num=2> > > Looks like btrfs is becoming very very competitive. Kudos to the > developers for producing a decent filesystem! > Interesting lack of so called advocates discussing this thread. Clearly they have little interest in advocating Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 13:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mggsm1$k63$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289408 |
On 2015-04-13 11:43 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: > On 13/04/2015 02:03, Slimer wrote: >> <http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-40-ssd&num=2> >> >> Looks like btrfs is becoming very very competitive. Kudos to the >> developers for producing a decent filesystem! >> > > Interesting lack of so called advocates discussing this thread. > > Clearly they have little interest in advocating Linux. I'm probably binned by all of them which is fine by me. I don't feel like having them address me with their nonsense. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 25 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web