Post #70,506
12/23/02 10:57:59 AM
|
good criticism, but only half right (re. filesystems)
It doesn't matter where the problem lies -- if UFS is a superior filesystem but the sloppy programs you rely on don't like, then you'll gravitate towards the filesystem that the sloppy programs you rely on will use. It doesn't necessarily matter if the new tool is a thousand times better: if you still need to use your old software, especially if its software you've made a significant investment on, you'll resist the change, because why go through all the headache?
This doesn't mean I disagree with your comments regarding the dangers of the "technopeasant faith" (though I do find that term more than a little arrogant) but there's no point in using the better technology if you can't run anything on it.
I never ran into the FAT v. HPFS problem in the OS/2 world, but that may have been a bit before my time. I loved HPFS. There was a similar furor over the latest filesystem, but there was a more significant problem there -- occasionally all your files would up and disappear due to some weird filesystem/kernel incompatibility (this was fixed in an update). At any rate, because of that a lot people stayed away from it for quite a while.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #70,508
12/23/02 11:11:45 AM
|
On FAT vs HPFS
I agree with your sentiments. A newer FS may be better, but if it causes more pain than a user's willing to tolerate, it'll have slow adoption.
I used OS/2 on FAT for quite a while. I started with 2.0 in May 1992. I used FAT because I didn't want to spend the $ on Gammatech's HPFS tools while Norton was a known quantity (and handled .EAs properly). There were occasional HPFS horror stories on USENET - critical bugs that needed to be fixed quickly, etc. For most users, it was a great FS from the get-go. But it made me a little nervous.
After eventually developing trust in HPFS on a test 2.1 partition, I only used FAT for a common partition with DOS. Now I wouldn't use anything other than HPFS for OS/2 - it's a great filesystem.
Similarly, when I first used Win95 I used FAT16 partitions until I developed confidence in FAT32.
I'd act the same way in moving to Linux - I'd start with ext2 before using JFS or ext3 or ReiserFS. While the latter FS are no doubt better, I feel it's better to start with an older FS and develop confidence before moving on.
YMMV.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #70,529
12/23/02 2:45:45 PM
|
Re: On FAT vs HPFS
Another Scott wrote:
After eventually developing trust in HPFS on a test 2.1 partition, I only used FAT for a common partition with DOS.
Makes sense.
Now I wouldn't use anything other than HPFS for OS/2 - it's a great filesystem.
It really is. Did you know: For a very long time, technical users of MS-Windows NT continued to embarrass Microsoft Corporation by finding inventive ways to keep NT's HPFS support working on NT workstations. Microsoft created that support in order to try to migrate over OS/2 users, but was continually embarrassed by users continuing to use that filesystem by preference on new workstations, as it was/is self-defragmenting (unlike FAT and NTFS) and provides many times faster file access. Microsoft has made it progressively more difficult, of late requiring you to hand-edit Registry keys and copy over system libraries from old NT versions. I don't know if it's still possible, not having any Win32 systems to play with.
I'd act the same way in moving to Linux - I'd start with ext2 before using JFS or ext3 or ReiserFS.
Yes. During the California power shortages of a year ago, many people suddenly developed a liking for journaling filesystems. I rebuild my server on SGI's XFS filesystem at the time, even though my distribution lacked support for it. (I [link|http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/xfs-conversion|wrote up the process], to help others.)
Of late, after initially being very skeptical about ext3's overhead, I've found it to be so low (in all circumstances I've tested) as to be negligible, and therefore find ext3 really useful -- because it's so very easy to convert any ext2 filesystem to it. With the nice advantage that ext2 remains available as a fallback: Just remount as ext2, and you're done. Journal corruption is a non-issue. Just delete and remake it: No risk to data.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
|
Post #70,762
12/25/02 6:55:44 AM
|
Re: On FAT vs HPFS
Yes - pinball.sys - was a reghack on 3.51 - and it still worked on NT 4.0 - although "this is not supported" yada yada. I had a machine that quintuple booted various Windows and OS/2 versions - HPFS always impressed me with its speed.
One of our old and missed members, Brad Barclay (aka Yazstromo, OS/2 god), wrote a nice summary of HPFS here some years ago.
-drl
|
Post #70,859
12/25/02 11:20:32 PM
|
Re: On FAT vs HPFS
FYI.. Yaz is a pretty regular poster to the mail list, if you're wanting to get in touch :)
-----
Steve
|
Post #70,922
12/26/02 12:02:03 PM
|
Re: On FAT vs HPFS
I wish I could buy a copy of Warp 4 -grumble-
Say hi to Yaz and bid him drop by here :)
-drl
|
Post #70,926
12/26/02 1:01:04 PM
|
3 copies now on eBay. IBM has it too for $180.
|
Post #72,155
1/3/03 1:54:53 AM
|
consider picking up eCS
it is more up to date than Warp 4. [link|http://www.ecomstation.com/template.phtml?url=automated/news/eCS%201.1%20Release%20Candadite%20[lb]1%20being%20uploaded%20for%20UP%20subscribers.html&title=eCS%201.1%20Release%20Candadite%20#1%20being%20uploaded%20for%20UP%20subscribers|Release Candidate 1] of version 1.1 was recently put online for "upgrade protection customers".
Darrell Spice, Jr.
[link|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
|
Post #70,526
12/23/02 2:32:37 PM
|
Er, I did say two volumes...
cwbrenn wrote:
if UFS is a superior filesystem but the sloppy programs you rely on don't like, then you'll gravitate towards the filesystem that the sloppy programs you rely on will use.
When you're preparing the hard drive for installation, you create a small HFS+ volume and a large UFS one. Subsequently, in the rare event of your installing something to the UFS one and it not working, you install it over again to HFS+ and file a bug report.
I believe I've now said that twice. The reasons should be apparent.
I loved HPFS.
Then, if you dual-booted, then you had both HPFS and FAT. If you didn't, it was silly to keep much of your hard drive as FAT.
This doesn't mean I disagree with your comments regarding the dangers of the "technopeasant faith" (though I do find that term more than a little arrogant).
Remember: A gentleman tries to never give offence accidentally. ;->
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
|
