[News] A Look at the Linux-based Challenger to ZFS
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
A Better File System for Linux?
,----[ Quote ]
| BTRFS (pronounced better FS) is currently under development in an effort led
| by Oracle engineer Chris Mason. With the support of Intel(NASDAQ: INTC), Red
| Hat (NYSE: RHT), HP (NYSE: HPQ), IBM (NYSE: IBM), BTRFS could become the
| engine that brings next generation filesystem capabilities to Linux.
|
| "The main goal is to let it {Linux} scale for the storage that will be
| available," Chris Mason Director of Linux Kernel Engineering at Oracle told
| InternetNews.com. "Scaling is not just about addressing the storage but also
| means being able to administer and to manage it with a clean interface that
| lets people see what's being used and makes it more reliable."
`----
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3781676/A+Better+File+System+for+Linux.htm
Recent:
Btrfs 0.16, Improved Scalability And Performance
,----[ Quote ]
| "Btrfs v0.16 is available for download," began Chris Mason, announcing the
| latest release of his new Btrfs filesystem. He noted, "v0.16 has a shiny new
| disk format, and is not compatible with filesystems created by older Btrfs
| releases. But, it should be the fastest Btrfs yet, with a wide variety of
| scalability fixes and new features." Improved scalability and performance
| improvements include fine grained btree locking, pushing CPU intensive
| operations such as checksumming into their own background threads, improved
| data=ordered mode, and a new cache to reduce IO requirements when cleaning up
| old transactions.
`----
http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Btrfs_0.16_Improved_Scalability_And_Performance
Related:
Btrfs 0.12, Performance Improvements
,----[ Quote ]
| Btrfs was first announced in June of 2007, as an alpha-quality filesystem
| offering checksumming of all files and metadata, extent based file storage,
| efficient packing of small files, dynamic inode allocation, writable
| snapshots, object level mirroring and striping, and fast offline filesystem
| checks, among other features. The project's website explains, "Linux has a
| wealth of filesystems to choose from, but we are facing a number of
| challenges with scaling to the large storage subsystems that are becoming
| common in today's data centers. Filesystems need to scale in their ability to
| address and manage large storage, and also in their ability to detect, repair
| and tolerate errors in the data stored on disk."
`----
http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Btrfs_0.12_Performance_Improvements
Kernel space: a better btrfs
,----[ Quote ]
| A powerful new filesystem for Linux already supports fast snapshots,
| checksums for all data, and online resizing--and plans to add ZFS-style
| built-in striping and mirroring.
`----
http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/012208-kernel.html?fsrc=rss-linux-news
Btrfs Online Resizing, Ext3 Conversion, and More
,----[ Quote ]
| Chris Mason announced version 0.10 of his new Btrfs filesystem, listing the
| following new features, "explicit back references, online resizing (including
| shrinking), in place conversion from Ext3 to Btrfs, data=ordered support,
| mount options to disable data COW and checksumming, and barrier support for
| sata and IDE drives".
`----
http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Btrfs_Online_Resizing_Ext3_Conversion_and_More
Linux: Btrfs, File Data and Metadata Checksums
,----[ Quote ]
| Chris Mason announced an early alpha release of his new Btrfs
| filesystem, "after the last FS summit, I started working on a new
| filesystem that maintains checksums of all file data and metadata." He
| listed the following features as "mostly implemented": "extent based file
| storage (2^64 max file size), space efficient packing of small files,
| space efficient indexed directories, dynamic inode allocation, writable
| snapshots, subvolumes (separate internal filesystem roots), checksums on
| data and metadata (multiple algorithms available), very fast offline
| filesystem check".
`----
http://kerneltrap.org/node/8376
Interview: Chris Mason about Btrfs
,----[ Quote ]
| Q: Several people might be interested what you think about ZFS, why you see a
| need for Btrfs “despite of ZFS” (some people think ZFS is the solution for
| everything for them).
|
| Well, the short answer is that for Linux, there is no ZFS. I know about
| the FUSE port, but that isn’t a long term solution in terms of
| performance or enterprise workloads. ZFS has an impressive list of
| features (and clearly many happy users), but the real competition for
| Btrfs is other Linux filesystems.
`----
http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/interview-chris-mason-about-btrfs/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkkKUmYACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4BCACgiAAN1tawvihxMyUxX8PbQ1bB
Oa8AnAhEEHUSo+8VQoLvLr4+8UusFiTi
=8FmE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Moshe Goldfarb.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> A Better File System for Linux?
I thought the Reiser file system was killer!!
The fickle Linux community sure dropped that one like a hot potato.
Just what Linux needs, another file system.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Jerry McBride
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:33:41 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> A Better File System for Linux?
>
> I thought the Reiser file system was killer!!
> The fickle Linux community sure dropped that one like a hot potato.
>
> Just what Linux needs, another file system.
>
it's all about choice. It's something you'll never, ever understand.
--
*****************************************************************************
From the desk of:
Jerome D. McBride
20:17:27 up 5 days, 7:51, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
*****************************************************************************
Snit
20081031225131.4c481327@zest on 10/31/08 7:51 PM:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:56:32 -0400
> "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just what Linux needs, another file system.
>
> That's the wonderful thing about systems that provide choice to you:
> you can choose whether you care about the choices or not. ;-)
But with so many choices, what choices do developers develop for? It is a
problem with Linux - as seen by the UI inconsistencies.
> Certain filesystems are very good for certain types of workload. There
> is not, nor will there really ever be, a one-size-fits-all filesystem.
> ext3 is great for a lot of situations, and is a reasonable default
> filesystem for most users, particularly desktops and workstations that
> do not need to access tens or hundreds of thousands of tiny little
> files per minute. Reiser4 is the winner hands-down on performance in
> that type of a situation because it handles tiny files wonderfully
> efficiently, but I am under the impression that it's no longer really
> actively maintained, being that the guy that its named after is no
> longer able to do anything with it and the programmers from the company
> behind the ReiserFS family don't have the highest of motivations to
> work on the filesystem currently.
>
> "Butterfs" is looking like it is going to be the type of filesystem
> that will be suitable for information systems that have a great need to
> scale, and is probably not the type of filesystem that you're going to
> use on an everyday basis in the home---though, it sounds like it may be
> a default someday in a simplified configuration, if ext4 is indeed the
> last in the line of the ext filesystems as can be speculated by
> Theodore Tso's email to the LKML earlier this month.[1] I'd have no
> objection to this, personally. I think that all operating systems
> should at least support the freedom of choice for their users, anyway,
> because no two individuals are alike and everyone has a preference for
> something. Even if the preference is "just give me the default."
>
> --- Mike
>
> [1] http://is.gd/5oyb
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472
Snit
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:43:01 -0700
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Michael B. Trausch" <mi...@trausch.us> stated in post
>> 20081031225131.4c481327@zest on 10/31/08 7:51 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> That's the wonderful thing about systems that provide choice to you:
>>> you can choose whether you care about the choices or not. ;-)
>>
>> But with so many choices, what choices do developers develop for? It
>> is a problem with Linux - as seen by the UI inconsistencies.
>
> Trimming is good, ya know?
>
> If you like a consistent interface, use GTK/GNOME software with GNOME,
> Qt/KDE software with KDE, and Win32/Win32-targeted software with
> Windows. The software I use is pretty consistent from application to
> application, but then again, I don't mix-and-match software from
> different toolkits together. I think it's æsthetically displeasing,
> for starters. Lack of consistency between them is going to be natural,
> for no other reason than if they were all cloning each other, it'd be a
> bunch of redundant work.
>
> This is why Microsoft, Apple, and the GNOME developers have HIG
> documents that state the rules for interfaces for those systems. Maybe
> one day there will be a universal HIG standard of some sort, if anyone
> cares enough to create such a thing.
The error in your claim is that you are assuming that the user should be
responsible for making a unified experience... even though *no* distro has
been able to do so nor has *anyone* in COLA been able to create a list of
apps that would offer this *choice*... a choice that would be unambiguously
better for most users (if not all).
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
Moshe Goldfarb.
> "Michael B. Trausch" <mi...@trausch.us> stated in post
> 20081031225131.4c481327@zest on 10/31/08 7:51 PM:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:56:32 -0400
>> "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just what Linux needs, another file system.
>>
>> That's the wonderful thing about systems that provide choice to you:
>> you can choose whether you care about the choices or not. ;-)
>
> But with so many choices, what choices do developers develop for? It is a
> problem with Linux - as seen by the UI inconsistencies.
Too much choice creates confusion.
Marketing 101.
Hey even the Chinese agree and so do the Linux audio developers.
If you want Linux to taken on and challenge Microsoft and Apple, you need
to pool your resources.
There is no other way.
Snit
17vsq2xatpjyj$.1hiobawo...@40tude.net on 11/1/08 7:27 AM:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:43:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Michael B. Trausch" <mi...@trausch.us> stated in post
>> 20081031225131.4c481327@zest on 10/31/08 7:51 PM:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:56:32 -0400
>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just what Linux needs, another file system.
>>>
>>> That's the wonderful thing about systems that provide choice to you:
>>> you can choose whether you care about the choices or not. ;-)
>>
>> But with so many choices, what choices do developers develop for? It is a
>> problem with Linux - as seen by the UI inconsistencies.
>
> Too much choice creates confusion.
> Marketing 101.
And easily defended with research, such as the research showing that when
people are offered six choices of jams compared to 20, with six: they like
the jams more and they purchase more. Even later they show greater
satisfaction with the jams.
This is *not* to say I want any controlling group to prevent people from
making as many distros as they wish... have a ditro of the month club for
all I care. But do not pretend there are not down sides to this.
> Hey even the Chinese agree and so do the Linux audio developers.
And many, many others in the OSS community have talked about the downsides
of lots and lots of options and a lack of consistency.
> If you want Linux to taken on and challenge Microsoft and Apple, you need
> to pool your resources.
> There is no other way.
--
Snit
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:18:19 -0700
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> The error in your claim is that you are assuming that the user should
>> be responsible for making a unified experience... even though *no*
>> distro has been able to do so nor has *anyone* in COLA been able to
>> create a list of apps that would offer this *choice*... a choice that
>> would be unambiguously better for most users (if not all).
>
> If there is a flaw in my claim, point it out.
See above.
> Everyone has the freedom
> of choice.
Judging choices by *quantity*, as you are doing, is - in my view - less
valuable than judging choices by *quality*, as I am doing (though I
discussed only one quality... clearly there are more things that are needed
for quality!)
> If you can't read the package description in Synaptic, that's really
> not my problem
Straw man. Noted.
> ; the system is certainly designed for the literate to use. If you choose not
> to take the time to read the package description in Synaptic, that is also not
> my problem, they are provided so that you can make that choice---why would
> someone here duplicate that work, hrm? If you're going to install software,
> all you have to do is know how to point, click, and read. If you need to ask
> a question about what you're reading, then do so. If you use Ubuntu, you can
> use Launchpad Answers, or a relevant support newsgroup or mailing list.
Irrelevant to my point. Do you even understand what you are arguing
against?
--
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations. - David Friedman
Snit
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:03:16 -0700
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Michael B. Trausch" <mi...@trausch.us> stated in post
>> 20081101105128.46ff7bda@zest on 11/1/08 7:51 AM:
>>
>>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:18:19 -0700
>>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The error in your claim is that you are assuming that the user
>>>> should be responsible for making a unified experience... even
>>>> though *no* distro has been able to do so nor has *anyone* in COLA
>>>> been able to create a list of apps that would offer this
>>>> *choice*... a choice that would be unambiguously better for most
>>>> users (if not all).
>>>
>>> If there is a flaw in my claim, point it out.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>
> You did not point out a flaw in my claim, you pointed out a flaw in
> your character and exposed your apathy. Failure to recognize this
> denotes your inability to hold a logical argument. Software---not just
> in the GNU/Linux world, but also in the Windows world---uses natural
> language to communicate with users. This means they are expected to
> *read* what is on the screen.
Straw man. Nobody said a thing about reading or not reading anything on the
screen.
>>> Everyone has the freedom
>>> of choice.
>>
>> Judging choices by *quantity*, as you are doing, is - in my view -
>> less valuable than judging choices by *quality*, as I am doing
>> (though I discussed only one quality... clearly there are more things
>> that are needed for quality!)
>
> I am not judging choices at all. I only stated that everyone has the
> freedom of choice. I didn't not say anything about quality or
> quantity. Read the words that are present, and read them carefully
> before you bother to open the floodgates and start composing a reply.
> To do anything less ensures you'll earn your way into my killfile.
You are either purposely missing the point or you are not able to understand
the point. Either way, frankly, I do not care.
In the end the fact stays the same: *no* distro has been able to produce a
consistent user experience... and *nobody* in COLA has been able to produce
a list of apps they would include in a distro that would present such an
experience. The choice does not exist in the OSS world. The closest there
is, as far as I know, is Ubuntu, and Mark Shuttleworth is very clear as to
how it (and Linux) should grow:
Shuttleworth:
Rather than saying: "GNOME wins, KDE looses" I'd like us to
say: "How can we get this communities to sit down and talk to
each other"? ... I'm very interested in finding out, how to
get those two communities working closer together, how to get
more collaboration, more sharing. Both at the level of
technology but also at the level of best practices /
processes.
...
I'd like to see both desktops focusing on a common
infrastructure. And we've already seen that, a lot of the
Freedesktop initiatives have been embraced by both projects -
HAL, d-bus for instance.
This also applies to other software projects, if you name
your project g-something or k-something your are articulating
a very specific user experience. Projects should really look
to the whole Linux desktop and see how they can appeal to
both sides.
...
The fact that OS X is growing, tells us that Windows is
weakening. The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't,
tells you that OS X is offering things that Linux is not.
One of those is the pace of change, the level of innovation.
You really have to give credit to Apple for driving
innovation.
...
And at the moment we [the free software folks] don't offer
a particular easy place to go and express your technology.
Question:
What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
success of the Linux desktop?
Shuttleworth:
I think we don't yet deliver a good enough user experience. I
think we deliver a user experience for people that have a
reason to want to be on the Linux platform, either because of
price or because of freedom. If that was your primary reason,
Linux is the right answer.
But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price,
who is not too concerned about freedom, I don't think we can
say the Linux desktop offers the very best experience. And
that's something we have to change, that's something I'm
committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually
move the desktop experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
Shuttleworth:
Second thing is, we just can't do this only on GNOME or just
on KDE, we need to figure out on how to move the whole Linux
desktop platform forward. I suspect if we hire a bunch of
upstream developers they will be across both GNOME and KDE.
I think the Apple guys have a very good point when they say
we should let designers lead the definition of the user
experience.
You can join the others in COLA who disagree with this - after all, there is
nothing wrong with disagreement. But unless you can actually *show* where
it is incorrect do not expect to convince me. Remember, I was the one say
very much the same things well before Shuttleworth had that interview. I,
clearly, understand things well.
>>> If you can't read the package description in Synaptic, that's really
>>> not my problem
>>
>> Straw man. Noted.
>
> You claim a logical fallacy, yet the statement I made went directly to
> the point that what you claimed wasn't done already _is_ done. Package
> descriptions are there for a reason. They tell you what the software
> is, what the software does, and generally what environment the software
> is for.
Again you are dodging the point. Why? Nobody has said that one cannot do
what Ubuntu does - strive to have all programs work with one environment (in
the case of Ubuntu, it is Gnome). You keep saying that one can do this when
*nobody* is denying it.
This is dishonest of you.. or a sign you do not understand what you are
reading. Either way, frankly, it does not matter to me.
> To break it down into little chunks for you, my statement above that
> "everyone has the freedom of choice" depends upon the person sitting at
> the keyboard being competent enough to be literate, to spend the few
> seconds to read, and to be smart enough to ask for help when (s)he
> needs it. Many computer users posses none of these qualities, which is
> unfortunate; but these computer users are honestly none of my concern.
See how you not only show no sign of understanding you have become
condescending and pretend that someone has said something about people not
reading screens and other BS. You are demonstrating weak debating skills...
and maybe weak comprehension skills.
> To draw an analogy, it would be like someone buying a complex power
> tool and assuming that they can derive knowledge of how to use it
> simply by looking at it, without any familiarity of the class of power
> tool, then claiming that it was defective when they cut, maim, or
> mutilate themselves with it when a simple read of the instruction
> manual would have prevented such a scenario to begin with. The
> situation is analogous in that the person in the hypothetical scenario
> depicted here exhibits the same qualities as a person who expects to
> not be able to read information about what they're doing on the
> computer and yet somehow expecting it to magically do what they meant.
Your analogy assumes that the tool comes in working order... but *no*
desktop Linux distro does, not when the context of "working order" is a
consistent UI (even mostly - nobody is demanding some unobtainable
perfection!)
>>> ; the system is certainly designed for the literate to use. If you
>>> choose not to take the time to read the package description in
>>> Synaptic, that is also not my problem, they are provided so that
>>> you can make that choice---why would someone here duplicate that
>>> work, hrm? If you're going to install software, all you have to do
>>> is know how to point, click, and read. If you need to ask a
>>> question about what you're reading, then do so. If you use Ubuntu,
>>> you can use Launchpad Answers, or a relevant support newsgroup or
>>> mailing list.
>>
>> Irrelevant to my point. Do you even understand what you are arguing
>> against?
>
> Do explain how it is irrelevant to your point.
It is not relevant. No explanation needed. If you want to show relevancy
that is your task.
> Nobody is going to hand you food in the manner which a baby bird receives it,
> if that is what you are expecting. The information you argue is unavailable
> is easily obtainable directly from your computer. If you use a sane package
> management system, it doesn't even require a network round-trip to get that
> information out of it.
What I am asking for is *not* available. When you deny that you are showing
ignorance or dishonest. If you disagree then *show* the set of apps you
would use and what distro. Keep in mind above you talk about a tool coming
in "working order."
> The premise of my argument is that the user is absolutely, without question,
> responsible for what software they install
Irrelevant.
> (note that I do mean to make the implication that users are responsible for
> malware and computer viruses on platforms that support such things). The
> premise of your argument is that "the user [shouldn't] be responsible for
> making a unified experience", in response to my argument that mixing and
> matching software which uses various toolkits is not a pleasant experience.
My argument is not just that a user should not have to do what no distro has
been able to provide (nor anyone in COLA been able to define) but that a
user cannot do so. But, sure, at least some distros should come in "working
order" (keeping in mind the context of "working order").
> The only sane and reasonable answer to this is that if the user is too
> apathetic or stupid to make desirable choices, they shouldn't be there in the
> first place.
Ah, a user should do what Mark Shuttleworth cannot. A user should do what
*you* cannot. A user should do what *no* distro manager has been able to
do.
I am all for personal responsibility, but defending the state of Linux by
saying that a user should, essentially, re-write the UI of the programs they
use is, well, absurd. Cool that they can... absurd that, to get a product
in "working order". they have to.
> Another analogy: Assuming a heterosexual person who is active in practicing
> said heterosexuality, copulation feels good, but it doesn't take 13 offspring
> to figure out that the consequences of the action might be undesirable. If
> you're doing something and having undesirable consequences, then either you
> are doing it wrong, or you are expecting the impossible---take your pick. In
> this case, you're just being too lazy to do it right, assuming that your
> argument is, in fact, using yourself as the center of the argument. In the
> words of Rita Mae Brown, "Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over
> again, but expecting different results."
Too lazy to do what *nobody* on the planet, as far as you or I know, has
been able to do.
The argument is beyond absurd.
For the record: Shuttleworth has said he thinks he can do it in *two years*.
With his resources. And I suspect he is being overly optimistic.
Absurd to expect Joe User to do this. Really.
--
I can't say we will succeed at this, but we will make a significant attempt
to elevate the Linux desktop to the point where it is as good or better than
Apple.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Snit
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:53:53 -0700
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> In the end the fact stays the same: *no* distro has been able to
>> produce a consistent user experience... and *nobody* in COLA has been
>> able to produce a list of apps they would include in a distro that
>> would present such an experience.
>
> There is a world of proof to the contrary.
Another round of "Name that Distro!"
Oh how I love this game! The problem is nobody can find this mythological
distro that provides the user with a consistent UI. And if you could, of
course, a lot of the "standard" Linux software would break that consistency.
That is *not* a good user experience.
I realize it... as does Mark Shuttleworth. Unlike me, of course, he is in a
position to do a heck of a lot about it.
But let us even ignore, for now, the clearly problem with adding software...
even with what *comes* with the distros there simply is no such distro.
> First off, Ubuntu does this, out-of-the-box.
A new version just came out - so, since Mark Shuttleworth clearly gets the
same points I do, maybe it does. The past version did not. I will play
with it. I bet you are wrong.
> Secondly, the list you clearly wish dearly for already exists in the package
> manager.
Nope, at least not in any distro I know. Heck, even Ubuntu has KDE software
in its repository. Then again, it pretty much *has* to... or not be as
fully featured.
> You call this information anything you want---it doesn't matter what
> you _call_ it. Presenting is *not* a strawman. Out of my reader you go,
> troll (or maybe merely incompetent, the difference between the two in this
> context really is rather not the point).
I think the best way for you to stop being silly is for you to KF me... you
clearly are not able to offer a reasoned comment on the topic. You just
keep repeating the same things which *clearly* are inaccurate or even
dishonest.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Moshe Goldfarb.
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:27:19 -0400
> "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Too much choice creates confusion.
>> Marketing 101.
>>
>
> I suppose this is the reason that the default Vista control panel is a
> usability nightmare? *Way* too much abstraction behind too few
> buttons, making you _search_.
>
> No, give me the choices, please. I don't stop looking after the third
> item.
>
> --- Mike
Always bringing Microsoft into the discussion.....
Fine, if you want to choose from a dozen different file systems, so be it
however this is NOT a good marketing model at all and maybe, just maybe, it
has something to do with Linux's total and complete fragmentation.
Here is what the Linux audio developers have to say about too many Linux
sound systems:
http://lwn.net/Articles/299093/
"Lennart Poettering, a lead developer of PulseAudio and Red Hat employee,
moderated the miniconference and started with a summary of the state of
Linux audio: "it's a mess." The audio miniconference came up with two steps
toward cleaning up the mess, though. First, come up with a coherent story
for application developers on what sound API to use, and how. Second, clean
up the often-confusing array of user-visible audio level controls."
""If someone comes and says, 'I want to write an audio application. Which
API should I use?' I don't have a good answer," Lennart said"
Here is what the Chinese Govt has to say:
"Hu Ke, an analyst from CCID Consulting, said China's Linux industry has
problems in products, users, communities, and market channels. Hu said that
there are too many incompatible Linux editions in the industry, which
hampers their promotion."
So you see, choice is NOT always a good thing.
While your argument looks great on paper, in practice it is hindering Linux
and in a very big way.
Moshe Goldfarb.
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 21:27:58 -0400
> "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here is what the Linux audio developers have to say about too many
>> Linux sound systems:
>
> What, pray tell, do multiple file systems all adhering to the same API
> have _anything_ to do with the multiple sound systems all with their
> own APIs? Being able to use multiple filesystems is a transparent
> process under Linux. Plug in a FAT16 formatted device, it works. Plug
It's about too much choice not always being a good thing.
I notice you snipped the part about the Chinese wishing that the many Linux
distributions could at least be compatible with each other.
Face it, you can slice and dice and dissect down to the minutia any part of
this choice topic all you wish but the facts are on the table.
Linux is doing horrible as a desktop system, and too much choice is a
major part of that.
Pool your resources, stop the distribution of the hour, focus on a single
desktop that actually works (unlike the hodgepodge of kde and gnome each
trying to out do the other), stop the internal bickering and focus on
beating Microsoft at their own game.
That is the only way Linux will top Microsoft.
If you guys want all this choice, something will suffer.
I would 17+ years of Linux failing to make a dent on the desktop is pretty
good evidence that your choice method isn't working.
chrisv
>mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>> If you guys want all this choice, something will suffer.
>> I would 17+ years of Linux failing to make a dent on the desktop is
>> pretty good evidence that your choice method isn't working.
>
>Hrm, the first production version of Linux was released in early 1994.
>It's late 2008. That would seem to amount to about 14½ years.
>
>And Linux is, and has been, a _huge_ success in every way measurable,
>particularly since popularity really isn't the goal. The goal is to
>have a great system in place for people that want to use that system.
>Don't like the ones that are available? You have the freedom to build
>your own! It's not a black box.
More of the mentally-ill troll's "logic".
"Linux has choice and Linux has small market share. Therefore, Linux
would be better-off with less choice."
Sheesh. I sure am glad I'm not that fsckwitted...
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ chrisv on Tuesday 04 November 2008 14:42 : \____
Wha?? Linux has small market share?
,----[ Quote ]
| "Forty percent of servers run Windows, 60 percent run Linux," [Ballmer]
| said. "How are we doing? Forty is less than 60, so I don't like it. ... We
| have some work to do."
`----
Linux still super in Top500
,----[ Quote ]
| In the June 2008 Top500 list, Linux still lives large with a role in 92% of
| systems (It is the only OS for 85.4%, but when considering all distributions
| (SUSE, Red Hat, CentOS, and general ‘Linux,’ as well as mixed uses that
| include Linux, I figure the share is more like the 92%).
`----
http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/06/26/linux-still-super-in-top500/
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Microsoft loves competition.
"We should whack them (Dell over Linux dealings), we should make sure they
understand our value."
--Paul Flessner, Senior Vice President, Server Applications Unit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkkQoYgACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6vAwCgsh37oeBfkFtgYLDi46B1YufV
jE8AmwXhe1iPKgMiH1+JUyyTjqbSQeVS
=TlVq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Homer
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "Forty percent of servers run Windows, 60 percent run Linux,"
> | [Ballmer] said. "How are we doing? Forty is less than 60, so I
> | don't like it. ... We have some work to do."
> `----
Why?
This quote says it all about the Vole's mentality. They have a healthy
market share, and they make a profit in that market, so why is 40% not
enough? Why are other companies not allowed to sell their products and
services in that market too? Competing is one thing, but what the Vole
seems to be aiming for is industrial genocide followed by domination.
It's sick; it's wrong; and it should be illegal. In fact, I would have
Ballmer jailed just for making that statement.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
03:18:12 up 25 days, 13:14, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.03
Mark Kent
> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:33:41 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> A Better File System for Linux?
>>
>> I thought the Reiser file system was killer!!
>> The fickle Linux community sure dropped that one like a hot potato.
>>
>> Just what Linux needs, another file system.
>>
> it's all about choice. It's something you'll never, ever understand.
>
I have a mental image of someone wearing "one-size" socks which aren't
quite long enough, a one-size shirt which is too long in the arms and
too tight at the kneck, a one-size trouser which stops short enough that
you can see the one-size socks...
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
Ezekiel
"Homer" <use...@slated.org> wrote in message
news:atf7u5-...@sky.matrix...
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | "Forty percent of servers run Windows, 60 percent run Linux,"
>> | [Ballmer] said. "How are we doing? Forty is less than 60, so I
>> | don't like it. ... We have some work to do."
>> `----
>
> Why?
>
> This quote says it all about the Vole's mentality. They have a healthy
> market share, and they make a profit in that market, so why is 40% not
> enough? Why are other companies not allowed to sell their products and
> services in that market too? Competing is one thing, but what the Vole
> seems to be aiming for is industrial genocide followed by domination.
>
> It's sick; it's wrong; and it should be illegal. In fact, I would have
> Ballmer jailed just for making that statement.
What an idiot and hypocrite this Homer loser is. He wants to make 'freedom
of speech' illegal and supports the jailing of people for exercising free
speech.
Mark Kent
>> produce a consistent user experience... and *nobody* in COLA has been
>> able to produce a list of apps they would include in a distro that
>> would present such an experience.
>
> this, out-of-the-box. Secondly, the list you clearly wish dearly for
> already exists in the package manager. You call this information
> anything you want---it doesn't matter what you _call_ it. Presenting
> is *not* a strawman. Out of my reader you go, troll (or maybe merely
> incompetent, the difference between the two in this context really is
> rather not the point).
>
You're wasting your time in discussion with Mr Glasser. He'll troll all
day and all night - best to just killfile him.
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Mark Kent on Wednesday 26 November 2008 15:09 : \____
> Jerry McBride <jmcb...@mail-on.us> espoused:
>> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:33:41 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> A Better File System for Linux?
>>>
>>> I thought the Reiser file system was killer!!
>>> The fickle Linux community sure dropped that one like a hot potato.
>>>
>>> Just what Linux needs, another file system.
>>>
>> it's all about choice. It's something you'll never, ever understand.
>>
>
> I have a mental image of someone wearing "one-size" socks which aren't
> quite long enough, a one-size shirt which is too long in the arms and
> too tight at the kneck, a one-size trouser which stops short enough that
> you can see the one-size socks...
It's like the Animal Farm. Microsoft is communism. :-)
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | /earth: file system full
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 140 total, 1 running, 139 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkktcdAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo680ACgh9lsXicH+JstHGjlqRVT6QfW
fVkAnjXmuA2xYnaSj06Lo943BhCck84t
=7NDH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Snit
p77006-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk on 11/26/08 8:40 AM:
> Michael B. Trausch <mi...@trausch.us> espoused:
>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:53:53 -0700
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In the end the fact stays the same: *no* distro has been able to
>>> produce a consistent user experience... and *nobody* in COLA has been
>>> able to produce a list of apps they would include in a distro that
>>> would present such an experience.
>>
>> There is a world of proof to the contrary. First off, Ubuntu does
>> this, out-of-the-box. Secondly, the list you clearly wish dearly for
>> already exists in the package manager. You call this information
>> anything you want---it doesn't matter what you _call_ it. Presenting
>> is *not* a strawman. Out of my reader you go, troll (or maybe merely
>> incompetent, the difference between the two in this context really is
>> rather not the point).
>>
>
> You're wasting your time in discussion with Mr Glasser. He'll troll all
> day and all night - best to just killfile him.
>
So show where I am wrong... please rise above silly accusations and name
calling.
If you can.