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 138 — 19 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! 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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 17:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mgmkii$uvm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289935 |
On 2015-04-15 5:14 PM, vallor wrote: > On 04/14/2015 05:26 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> Desk Rabbit wrote: > >>> Peter has a new job at his local football club. He's the resident goal >>> post mover. >> >> Who was moving the goalposts when you idiots discovered that your bullshit >> claim of "windows has snapshots, linux does not" vanished in a puff of >> smoke? >> > > JUST SO. > > Seriously, these kids cannot steer. If they wanted to bitch about > something Linux doesn't have, they'd be complaining that LVM doesn't > have proper deduplication, which is a valid criticism (up to a point). > But no snapshots on Linux? Gimme a break. Except that none of us said that Linux doesn't do snapshots. We claimed that Linux distributions, by default, do not offer it. That, regardless of how much tap-dancing you do, is correct. < snip > > Finally, I'll add here that LVM works with ALL filesystems. So if you > wanted to use, say, xfs with it -- knock yourself out. However, that statement just confirms that LVM is not a filesystem, doesn't it? By default, Linux does not provide snapshots and the filesystem it uses doesn't even offer that functionality. People CAN use LVM, but this is up to the user to set up. Will you argue with the above paragraph? -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 09:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mgj36j$328$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289616 |
On 2015-04-14 4:00 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: > On 14/04/2015 00:24, Slimer wrote: >> On 2015-04-13 6:32 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> Slimer wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-04-13 1:58 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 01:16:31 -0700 (PDT) >>>>>> taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AFAIK btrfs is the only filesystem optimized for SSDs, give it >>>>>>> built-in encryption and it becomes the #1! >>>>>> >>>>>> BTRFS does not have reliable recovery tool yet. Ext4 is best >>>>>> choice if >>>>>> you value your data! >>>>> >>>>> Guess that's why RedHat dropped it and kept ext4. >>>> >>>> So even though btrfs is the only one who provides a "snapshot" feature, >>>> it's not reliable. >>> >>> Bullshit. Try to educate yourself a tiny little bit >>> Providing snapshots is not limited to Btrfs. With LVM you get that >>> capability also. LVM exists for quite a long time >> >> Oh, you mentioned that in earlier posts, except that LVM is not a >> filesystem now is it? Also, it isn't provided by default anywhere. >> People would have to learn about it, set it up correctly and eventually >> use its incredibly cumbersome design to restore. > > Peter has a new job at his local football club. He's the resident goal > post mover. They don't trust him to do such a complicated job. He was only allowed to do two jobs: wash dishes or become the country's #1 clown. He's terrible at washing dishes because he's such a Peter Köhlmann so now he makes balloon animals for the Hitler Youth. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 23:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mghjrs$mag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289514 |
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:32:17 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> So even though btrfs is the only one who provides a "snapshot" feature, >> it's not reliable. > > Bullshit. Try to educate yourself a tiny little bit Providing snapshots > is not limited to Btrfs. With LVM you get that capability also. LVM > exists for quite a long time You've got to understand something about Snit. He lies by twisting your words -- and he does it constantly. And he has zero shame for doing it. He's a small-minded, chickenshit little twit ... and, apparently, he always will be one. It's best to just killfile him. -- To WinDrones and iCultists obsessed with Linux. Get a life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 19:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mghk9s$nr5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289536 |
On 4/13/2015 7:35 PM, ronb wrote: > On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:32:17 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >>> So even though btrfs is the only one who provides a "snapshot" feature, >>> it's not reliable. >> >> Bullshit. Try to educate yourself a tiny little bit Providing snapshots >> is not limited to Btrfs. With LVM you get that capability also. LVM >> exists for quite a long time > > You've got to understand something about Snit. He lies by twisting your > words -- and he does it constantly. And he has zero shame for doing it. > He's a small-minded, chickenshit little twit ... and, apparently, he > always will be one. It's best to just killfile him. No, it's best to mock him and shove his idiotic lies back down his idiotic lying throat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 18:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D151B4C2.4A1C1%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #289545 |
On 4/13/15, 4:43 PM, in article mghk9s$nr5$2@dont-email.me, "DFS" <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > On 4/13/2015 7:35 PM, ronb wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:32:17 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>>> So even though btrfs is the only one who provides a "snapshot" feature, >>>> it's not reliable. >>> >>> Bullshit. Try to educate yourself a tiny little bit Providing snapshots >>> is not limited to Btrfs. With LVM you get that capability also. LVM >>> exists for quite a long time >> >> You've got to understand something about Snit. He lies by twisting your >> words -- and he does it constantly. And he has zero shame for doing it. >> He's a small-minded, chickenshit little twit ... and, apparently, he >> always will be one. It's best to just killfile him. > > > No, it's best to mock him and shove his idiotic lies back down his > idiotic lying throat. * Quote the lie. * Show it is a lie. These rules are too hard for you. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 23:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mgi0oc$n27$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289569 |
On 4/13/2015 9:00 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/13/15, 4:43 PM, in article mghk9s$nr5$2@dont-email.me, "DFS" > <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > >> On 4/13/2015 7:35 PM, ronb wrote: >>> On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:32:17 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>>>> So even though btrfs is the only one who provides a "snapshot" feature, >>>>> it's not reliable. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Try to educate yourself a tiny little bit Providing snapshots >>>> is not limited to Btrfs. With LVM you get that capability also. LVM >>>> exists for quite a long time >>> >>> You've got to understand something about Snit. He lies by twisting your >>> words -- and he does it constantly. And he has zero shame for doing it. >>> He's a small-minded, chickenshit little twit ... and, apparently, he >>> always will be one. It's best to just killfile him. >> >> >> No, it's best to mock him and shove his idiotic lies back down his >> idiotic lying throat. ========================================================================= > * Quote the lie. Post #25: "I was *repeatedly* asked how I was able to find EXIF data on a jpg." > * Show it is a lie. At the time you made that claim, not one person had asked how you were able to find EXIF data on a jpg. You lied. ========================================================================= etc etc etc on and on and on > These rules are too hard for you. Honesty and normalcy is too hard for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 18:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D151B4A8.4A1C0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #289536 |
On 4/13/15, 4:35 PM, in article mghjrs$mag$1@dont-email.me, "ronb" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:32:17 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >>> So even though btrfs is the only one who provides a "snapshot" feature, >>> it's not reliable. >> >> Bullshit. Try to educate yourself a tiny little bit Providing snapshots >> is not limited to Btrfs. With LVM you get that capability also. LVM >> exists for quite a long time > > You've got to understand something about Snit. He lies by twisting your > words -- and he does it constantly. And he has zero shame for doing it. And I do it so well it cannot even be shown. Got it! > He's a small-minded, chickenshit little twit ... and, apparently, he > always will be one. It's best to just killfile him. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 08:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mggeho$q7f$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289353 |
On 2015-04-13 4:16 AM, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:51:39 PM UTC+9, Snit wrote: >> On 4/12/15, 8:21 PM, in article 20150413052135.5c6489d3@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz" >> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:34:08 -0700 >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/12/15, 6:03 PM, in article mgf4jb$33g$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >>>> <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: >>>> >>>>> <http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-40-ssd&num=2> >>>>> >>>>> Looks like btrfs is becoming very very competitive. Kudos to the >>>>> developers for producing a decent filesystem! >>>> >>>> Read hear or somewhere that btrfs still has significant issues with >>>> files which have many rapid writes to... but it does seem to be >>>> coming along well. >>>> >>>> And I hope when it is matures Apple moves to it or ZFS or something >>>> better than the garbage HFS+ they use now. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Apple was moving to ZFS, but gave up for some reason. I don't think >>> that they can use btrfs because of licensing issues as well. >> >> Hopefully they figure something out. There are some indications they are >> preparing for it... but it has been a LONG time coming. Too long. >> >> >> -- >> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> >> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> >> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> >> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> >> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> >> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> >> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> >> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c> > > AFAIK btrfs is the only filesystem optimized for SSDs, give it built-in encryption and it becomes the #1! Well, considering SSDs are a lot more common than they used to be, such a filesystem is an excellent choice for Linux or even OS X going forward. It looks like it's removed all of what prevented it from competing with ext4 and if it is truly stable, there is no longer a reason to use ext4. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 14:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mggf8d$v0t$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #289353 |
On 13/04/2015 09:16, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:51:39 PM UTC+9, Snit wrote: >> On 4/12/15, 8:21 PM, in article 20150413052135.5c6489d3@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz" >> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:34:08 -0700 >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/12/15, 6:03 PM, in article mgf4jb$33g$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >>>> <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: >>>> >>>>> <http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-40-ssd&num=2> >>>>> >>>>> Looks like btrfs is becoming very very competitive. Kudos to the >>>>> developers for producing a decent filesystem! >>>> >>>> Read hear or somewhere that btrfs still has significant issues with >>>> files which have many rapid writes to... but it does seem to be >>>> coming along well. >>>> >>>> And I hope when it is matures Apple moves to it or ZFS or something >>>> better than the garbage HFS+ they use now. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Apple was moving to ZFS, but gave up for some reason. I don't think >>> that they can use btrfs because of licensing issues as well. >> >> Hopefully they figure something out. There are some indications they are >> preparing for it... but it has been a LONG time coming. Too long. >> >> >> -- >> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> >> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> >> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> >> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> >> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> >> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> >> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> >> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c> > > AFAIK btrfs is the only filesystem optimized for SSDs, give it built-in encryption and it becomes the #1! > btrfs is still considered experiment by many. https://wiki.debian.org/SSDOptimization
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 10:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mggkuq$k5t$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289372 |
On 2015-04-13 9:11 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: > On 13/04/2015 09:16, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:51:39 PM UTC+9, Snit wrote: >>> On 4/12/15, 8:21 PM, in article 20150413052135.5c6489d3@maxa-pc, >>> "Melzzzzz" >>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:34:08 -0700 >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/12/15, 6:03 PM, in article mgf4jb$33g$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >>>>> <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-40-ssd&num=2> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks like btrfs is becoming very very competitive. Kudos to the >>>>>> developers for producing a decent filesystem! >>>>> >>>>> Read hear or somewhere that btrfs still has significant issues with >>>>> files which have many rapid writes to... but it does seem to be >>>>> coming along well. >>>>> >>>>> And I hope when it is matures Apple moves to it or ZFS or something >>>>> better than the garbage HFS+ they use now. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Apple was moving to ZFS, but gave up for some reason. I don't think >>>> that they can use btrfs because of licensing issues as well. >>> >>> Hopefully they figure something out. There are some indications they are >>> preparing for it... but it has been a LONG time coming. Too long. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> >>> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> >>> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> >>> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> >>> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> >>> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> >>> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> >>> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c> >> >> AFAIK btrfs is the only filesystem optimized for SSDs, give it >> built-in encryption and it becomes the #1! >> > > btrfs is still considered experiment by many. > > https://wiki.debian.org/SSDOptimization Which is why I pointed that out to Peter the Klöwn. I'm sure that it performs well in openSUSE, but I'm not convinced that its stability is good enough to warrant the "snapshot" feature that it provides. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 16:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mggo0j$bj$3@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #289391 |
On 13/04/2015 15:48, Slimer wrote: > On 2015-04-13 9:11 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: >> On 13/04/2015 09:16, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:51:39 PM UTC+9, Snit wrote: >>>> On 4/12/15, 8:21 PM, in article 20150413052135.5c6489d3@maxa-pc, >>>> "Melzzzzz" >>>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:34:08 -0700 >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/12/15, 6:03 PM, in article mgf4jb$33g$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >>>>>> <slvrslmr@lv.c> 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! >>>>>> >>>>>> Read hear or somewhere that btrfs still has significant issues with >>>>>> files which have many rapid writes to... but it does seem to be >>>>>> coming along well. >>>>>> >>>>>> And I hope when it is matures Apple moves to it or ZFS or something >>>>>> better than the garbage HFS+ they use now. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Apple was moving to ZFS, but gave up for some reason. I don't think >>>>> that they can use btrfs because of licensing issues as well. >>>> >>>> Hopefully they figure something out. There are some indications they >>>> are >>>> preparing for it... but it has been a LONG time coming. Too long. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> * 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> >>> >>> AFAIK btrfs is the only filesystem optimized for SSDs, give it >>> built-in encryption and it becomes the #1! >>> >> >> btrfs is still considered experiment by many. >> >> https://wiki.debian.org/SSDOptimization > > Which is why I pointed that out to Peter the Klöwn. I'm sure that it > performs well in openSUSE, but I'm not convinced that its stability is > good enough to warrant the "snapshot" feature that it provides. > Peter also said it was standard on many distros and in particular high end enterprise systems. Seems that the authors of btrfs think different https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users Perhaps we should invite Peter to tell them they are idiots and they are wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 12:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mggskj$k63$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289406 |
On 2015-04-13 11:41 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: > On 13/04/2015 15:48, Slimer wrote: >> On 2015-04-13 9:11 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>> On 13/04/2015 09:16, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:51:39 PM UTC+9, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 4/12/15, 8:21 PM, in article 20150413052135.5c6489d3@maxa-pc, >>>>> "Melzzzzz" >>>>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:34:08 -0700 >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/12/15, 6:03 PM, in article mgf4jb$33g$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >>>>>>> <slvrslmr@lv.c> 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! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read hear or somewhere that btrfs still has significant issues with >>>>>>> files which have many rapid writes to... but it does seem to be >>>>>>> coming along well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And I hope when it is matures Apple moves to it or ZFS or something >>>>>>> better than the garbage HFS+ they use now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Apple was moving to ZFS, but gave up for some reason. I don't think >>>>>> that they can use btrfs because of licensing issues as well. >>>>> >>>>> Hopefully they figure something out. There are some indications they >>>>> are >>>>> preparing for it... but it has been a LONG time coming. Too long. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> * 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> >>>> >>>> AFAIK btrfs is the only filesystem optimized for SSDs, give it >>>> built-in encryption and it becomes the #1! >>>> >>> >>> btrfs is still considered experiment by many. >>> >>> https://wiki.debian.org/SSDOptimization >> >> Which is why I pointed that out to Peter the Klöwn. I'm sure that it >> performs well in openSUSE, but I'm not convinced that its stability is >> good enough to warrant the "snapshot" feature that it provides. >> > > Peter also said it was standard on many distros and in particular high > end enterprise systems. Seems that the authors of btrfs think different > https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users > > Perhaps we should invite Peter to tell them they are idiots and they are > wrong? _ONE_ distribution uses it which is exactly what I told the unfunny German joke. He never thought of checking the facts before spouting his Moron Gohde-style nonsense and now he looks like an ass yet again. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 19:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mggu4b$q8r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289428 |
Slimer wrote: > On 2015-04-13 11:41 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: >> On 13/04/2015 15:48, Slimer wrote: >>> On 2015-04-13 9:11 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>>> On 13/04/2015 09:16, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:51:39 PM UTC+9, Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 4/12/15, 8:21 PM, in article 20150413052135.5c6489d3@maxa-pc, >>>>>> "Melzzzzz" >>>>>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:34:08 -0700 >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/15, 6:03 PM, in article mgf4jb$33g$1@dont-email.me, >>>>>>>> "Slimer" <slvrslmr@lv.c> 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! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Read hear or somewhere that btrfs still has significant issues with >>>>>>>> files which have many rapid writes to... but it does seem to be >>>>>>>> coming along well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And I hope when it is matures Apple moves to it or ZFS or something >>>>>>>> better than the garbage HFS+ they use now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apple was moving to ZFS, but gave up for some reason. I don't think >>>>>>> that they can use btrfs because of licensing issues as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hopefully they figure something out. There are some indications they >>>>>> are >>>>>> preparing for it... but it has been a LONG time coming. Too long. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> * 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> >>>>> >>>>> AFAIK btrfs is the only filesystem optimized for SSDs, give it >>>>> built-in encryption and it becomes the #1! >>>>> >>>> >>>> btrfs is still considered experiment by many. >>>> >>>> https://wiki.debian.org/SSDOptimization >>> >>> Which is why I pointed that out to Peter the Klöwn. I'm sure that it >>> performs well in openSUSE, but I'm not convinced that its stability is >>> good enough to warrant the "snapshot" feature that it provides. >>> >> >> Peter also said it was standard on many distros and in particular high >> end enterprise systems. Seems that the authors of btrfs think different >> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users >> >> Perhaps we should invite Peter to tell them they are idiots and they are >> wrong? > > _ONE_ distribution uses it which is exactly what I told the unfunny > German joke. He never thought of checking the facts before spouting his > Moron Gohde-style nonsense and now he looks like an ass yet again. > Idiot. I never claimed that other distros use it by default. They *include* it. You can't read at all, like your ass-buddy Snit Michael Glasser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 17:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mghbih$kqi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289434 |
On 2015-04-13 1:25 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Slimer wrote: > >> On 2015-04-13 11:41 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>> On 13/04/2015 15:48, Slimer wrote: >>>> On 2015-04-13 9:11 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>>>> On 13/04/2015 09:16, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:51:39 PM UTC+9, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/12/15, 8:21 PM, in article 20150413052135.5c6489d3@maxa-pc, >>>>>>> "Melzzzzz" >>>>>>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:34:08 -0700 >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4/12/15, 6:03 PM, in article mgf4jb$33g$1@dont-email.me, >>>>>>>>> "Slimer" <slvrslmr@lv.c> 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! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Read hear or somewhere that btrfs still has significant issues with >>>>>>>>> files which have many rapid writes to... but it does seem to be >>>>>>>>> coming along well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And I hope when it is matures Apple moves to it or ZFS or something >>>>>>>>> better than the garbage HFS+ they use now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apple was moving to ZFS, but gave up for some reason. I don't think >>>>>>>> that they can use btrfs because of licensing issues as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hopefully they figure something out. There are some indications they >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> preparing for it... but it has been a LONG time coming. Too long. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> * 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> >>>>>> >>>>>> AFAIK btrfs is the only filesystem optimized for SSDs, give it >>>>>> built-in encryption and it becomes the #1! >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> btrfs is still considered experiment by many. >>>>> >>>>> https://wiki.debian.org/SSDOptimization >>>> >>>> Which is why I pointed that out to Peter the Klöwn. I'm sure that it >>>> performs well in openSUSE, but I'm not convinced that its stability is >>>> good enough to warrant the "snapshot" feature that it provides. >>>> >>> >>> Peter also said it was standard on many distros and in particular high >>> end enterprise systems. Seems that the authors of btrfs think different >>> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users >>> >>> Perhaps we should invite Peter to tell them they are idiots and they are >>> wrong? >> >> _ONE_ distribution uses it which is exactly what I told the unfunny >> German joke. He never thought of checking the facts before spouting his >> Moron Gohde-style nonsense and now he looks like an ass yet again. >> > > Idiot. I never claimed that other distros use it by default. They * include* > it. You can't read at all, like your ass-buddy Snit Michael Glasser I read just fine which is why I have a Master's degree and routinely school you. The reality is that you can't write and end up making stupid comments as a result of it. Stop blaming others for your own faults, Peter the Klöwn. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 14:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D15180B4.4A153%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #289479 |
On 4/13/15, 2:14 PM, in article mghbih$kqi$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: >>>> Perhaps we should invite Peter to tell them they are idiots and they are >>>> wrong? >>> >>> _ONE_ distribution uses it which is exactly what I told the unfunny German >>> joke. He never thought of checking the facts before spouting his Moron >>> Gohde-style nonsense and now he looks like an ass yet again. >>> >> >> Idiot. I never claimed that other distros use it by default. They * include* >> it. You can't read at all, like your ass-buddy Snit Michael Glasser >> > I read just fine which is why I have a Master's degree and routinely school > you. The reality is that you can't write and end up making stupid comments as > a result of it. Stop blaming others for your own faults, Peter the Klöwn. I have no comment on this now, but in 6+ years I will jump in and demand you account for your every comment. Be aware if you cannot you will be deemed a liar. Get ready! :) -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 21:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvhdi9e.3uro@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #289480 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/13/15, 2:14 PM, in article mghbih$kqi$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" > <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: >>>>> Perhaps we should invite Peter to tell them they are idiots and they are >>>>> wrong? >>>> >>>> _ONE_ distribution uses it which is exactly what I told the unfunny German >>>> joke. He never thought of checking the facts before spouting his Moron >>>> Gohde-style nonsense and now he looks like an ass yet again. >>>> >>> >>> Idiot. I never claimed that other distros use it by default. They * include* >>> it. You can't read at all, like your ass-buddy Snit Michael Glasser >>> >> I read just fine which is why I have a Master's degree and routinely school >> you. The reality is that you can't write and end up making stupid comments as >> a result of it. Stop blaming others for your own faults, Peter the Klöwn. > I have no comment on this now, but in 6+ years I will jump in and demand you > account for your every comment. Be aware if you cannot you will be deemed a > liar. > Get ready! > :) 2021 calendars are not out yet, or you could go ahead and allocate a week of your life to that project.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 16:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D151A3D5.4A1A3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #289499 |
On 4/13/15, 2:55 PM, in article nvhdi9e.3uro@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/13/15, 2:14 PM, in article mghbih$kqi$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >> <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: > >>>>>> Perhaps we should invite Peter to tell them they are idiots and they are >>>>>> wrong? >>>>> >>>>> _ONE_ distribution uses it which is exactly what I told the unfunny German >>>>> joke. He never thought of checking the facts before spouting his Moron >>>>> Gohde-style nonsense and now he looks like an ass yet again. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Idiot. I never claimed that other distros use it by default. They * >>>> include* >>>> it. You can't read at all, like your ass-buddy Snit Michael Glasser >>>> >>> I read just fine which is why I have a Master's degree and routinely school >>> you. The reality is that you can't write and end up making stupid comments >>> as >>> a result of it. Stop blaming others for your own faults, Peter the Klöwn. > >> I have no comment on this now, but in 6+ years I will jump in and demand you >> account for your every comment. Be aware if you cannot you will be deemed a >> liar. > >> Get ready! > >> :) > > 2021 calendars are not out yet, or you could go ahead and allocate a week > of your life to that project. > I use an electronic calendar .... I can set a reminder for six years from now. :) -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 17:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mghc7h$np6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289434 |
On 2015-04-13 1:25 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Slimer wrote: > >> On 2015-04-13 11:41 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>> On 13/04/2015 15:48, Slimer wrote: >>>> On 2015-04-13 9:11 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>>>> On 13/04/2015 09:16, taka0038@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:51:39 PM UTC+9, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/12/15, 8:21 PM, in article 20150413052135.5c6489d3@maxa-pc, >>>>>>> "Melzzzzz" >>>>>>> <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:34:08 -0700 >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4/12/15, 6:03 PM, in article mgf4jb$33g$1@dont-email.me, >>>>>>>>> "Slimer" <slvrslmr@lv.c> 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! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Read hear or somewhere that btrfs still has significant issues with >>>>>>>>> files which have many rapid writes to... but it does seem to be >>>>>>>>> coming along well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And I hope when it is matures Apple moves to it or ZFS or something >>>>>>>>> better than the garbage HFS+ they use now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apple was moving to ZFS, but gave up for some reason. I don't think >>>>>>>> that they can use btrfs because of licensing issues as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hopefully they figure something out. There are some indications they >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> preparing for it... but it has been a LONG time coming. Too long. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> * 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> >>>>>> >>>>>> AFAIK btrfs is the only filesystem optimized for SSDs, give it >>>>>> built-in encryption and it becomes the #1! >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> btrfs is still considered experiment by many. >>>>> >>>>> https://wiki.debian.org/SSDOptimization >>>> >>>> Which is why I pointed that out to Peter the Klöwn. I'm sure that it >>>> performs well in openSUSE, but I'm not convinced that its stability is >>>> good enough to warrant the "snapshot" feature that it provides. >>>> >>> >>> Peter also said it was standard on many distros and in particular high >>> end enterprise systems. Seems that the authors of btrfs think different >>> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users >>> >>> Perhaps we should invite Peter to tell them they are idiots and they are >>> wrong? >> >> _ONE_ distribution uses it which is exactly what I told the unfunny >> German joke. He never thought of checking the facts before spouting his >> Moron Gohde-style nonsense and now he looks like an ass yet again. >> > > Idiot. I never claimed that other distros use it by default. They *include* > it. You can't read at all, like your ass-buddy Snit Michael Glasser Here's evidence of how unclear you are. <mg5dr0$gj1$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> "> I know he's lying because when this first came up he shouted about how > Linux had this functionality and in his usual modus operandi he didn't > name this function, he just called everyone an idiot for not knowing > this mystery function. Then given a few hours to Google he suddenly > comes back with an example of a similar Restore point function available > in ONE DISTRO! Wrong. It is available in all distros which provide btrfs. Which means: Basically all the bigger ones which would be used for desktop / server And your idiotic claim that I googled for it: I run Suse linux since more than 15 years. Which is the distro which has btrfs as default fs. And has a nice shiny GUI tool to setup / retrieve snapshots You are truly an idiot, Hadron Desk Rabbit." He had basically made a correct statement and then you claimed that he was wrong in stating that only one distribution provides this. btrfs is indeed available just about everywhere, but the discussion was about whether Linux provides restore point functionality by _default_ which it doesn't. Only openSUSE does and only since 2014 which means that it is still 14 years late to imitate something Microsoft has offered on its operating systems since 2000. Essentially, you moved goalposts when you KNEW that we were talking about restore points by default missing in Linux and then claimed that someone who made a correct statement was wrong. You are not only illiterate, but a liar and an immoral one at that. Doesn't Germany have laws to cut off your fingers if you type a lie online? They should. They have all sorts of wacky laws in Deutschland. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-13 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D1514FE9.4A10B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #289428 |
On 4/13/15, 9:59 AM, in article mggskj$k63$2@dont-email.me, "Slimer" <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: >>> Which is why I pointed that out to Peter the Klöwn. I'm sure that it >>> performs well in openSUSE, but I'm not convinced that its stability is >>> good enough to warrant the "snapshot" feature that it provides. >>> >> >> Peter also said it was standard on many distros and in particular high >> end enterprise systems. Seems that the authors of btrfs think different >> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users >> >> Perhaps we should invite Peter to tell them they are idiots and they are >> wrong? > > _ONE_ distribution uses it which is exactly what I told the unfunny > German joke. He never thought of checking the facts before spouting his > Moron Gohde-style nonsense and now he looks like an ass yet again. This is how it works with Linux "advocates": if you note that Windows has feature Z and that desktop Linux does not (in general!) it will be noted that with distro X and option Q you can get that feature. The feature will generally not be done as well as the Windows feature but it will exist. Then you speak of feature Y and it is noted *another* distro has this. Eventually someone says desktop Linux is configurable and you can get all the features you want. But: 1) You will only get some... others are not available 2) Of the ones you can get many are done half-way 3) Even when done well, they are not done with the idea the others are present and are not coordinated This is perhaps more true of OS X where you have a whole suite of tools which others OSs do not... and the tools are tied together more. Look at full screen and virtual desktops. You can get both on Linux, but can you get them where a full screen app becomes its own desktop and is tied into the same system? Not that I know of. All sorts of examples like this. Desktop Linux looks good when you think in terms of a list of check boxes where you can say, yes, it has this feature - see, the check box is marked. In actual usage, though, these things do not work well or work well together. My videos show many such examples, esp. with KDE. -- * 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 17:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mghchf$p05$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #289439 |
On 2015-04-13 1:50 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/13/15, 9:59 AM, in article mggskj$k63$2@dont-email.me, "Slimer" > <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: > >>>> Which is why I pointed that out to Peter the Klöwn. I'm sure that it >>>> performs well in openSUSE, but I'm not convinced that its stability is >>>> good enough to warrant the "snapshot" feature that it provides. >>>> >>> >>> Peter also said it was standard on many distros and in particular high >>> end enterprise systems. Seems that the authors of btrfs think different >>> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users >>> >>> Perhaps we should invite Peter to tell them they are idiots and they are >>> wrong? >> >> _ONE_ distribution uses it which is exactly what I told the unfunny >> German joke. He never thought of checking the facts before spouting his >> Moron Gohde-style nonsense and now he looks like an ass yet again. > > This is how it works with Linux "advocates": if you note that Windows has > feature Z and that desktop Linux does not (in general!) it will be noted > that with distro X and option Q you can get that feature. > > The feature will generally not be done as well as the Windows feature but it > will exist. > > Then you speak of feature Y and it is noted *another* distro has this. > > Eventually someone says desktop Linux is configurable and you can get all > the features you want. But: > > 1) You will only get some... others are not available > 2) Of the ones you can get many are done half-way > 3) Even when done well, they are not done with the idea the others > are present and are not coordinated > > This is perhaps more true of OS X where you have a whole suite of tools > which others OSs do not... and the tools are tied together more. Look at > full screen and virtual desktops. You can get both on Linux, but can you get > them where a full screen app becomes its own desktop and is tied into the > same system? Not that I know of. > > All sorts of examples like this. > > Desktop Linux looks good when you think in terms of a list of check boxes > where you can say, yes, it has this feature - see, the check box is marked. > In actual usage, though, these things do not work well or work well > together. My videos show many such examples, esp. with KDE. At the end of the day, Linux looks good so long as you've not been exposed to other operating systems. It's sort of like a Blackberry user going from the BBOS 7 devices and suddenly upgrading to BBOS10. He sees all of these awesome new features and thinks it's the best phone ever made until his friend shows him his iPhone and demonstrates the same features in superior form and informs him that they've been available for years. Give a person who knows absolutely nothing about computers and they'll be content with Linux, so long as they are NEVER exposed to OS X or Windows. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web