KornDogg Posted October 30, 2001 Share Posted October 30, 2001 I choose XP just because I like what I am familiar with. Besides, the linux extfs sucks compared to NTFS 4 & 5. Sure NTFS has a good bit of overhead, but you have to give props on a higher file security. Since I am not a linux guru, I might be wrong on this, but if you try to store 1000's of small (< 1k) files on an extfs file system, you end up losing alot of unused space (can you even set the cluster size on a extfs partition)? I ran into this when I was running a forum on a linux box one time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quboid Posted October 30, 2001 Share Posted October 30, 2001 Originally posted by KornDogg I choose XP just because I like what I am familiar with. Besides, the linux extfs sucks compared to NTFS 4 & 5. Sure NTFS has a good bit of overhead, but you have to give props on a higher file security. Since I am not a linux guru, I might be wrong on this, but if you try to store 1000's of small (< 1k) files on an extfs file system, you end up losing alot of unused space (can you even set the cluster size on a extfs partition)? I ran into this when I was running a forum on a linux box one time. I think you are wrong - I just made a 2 byte file and it measured at 2 bytes. However in NTFS5 it took 512bytes, FAT32 took 4KB and FAT16 took 8KB. OK, everyone knows FAT is a joke and the Linux machine isn't measuring filename size and such so it's not giving a complete reading, but it's not limited to 1KB or more. I don't know for sure about setting cluster size, but I'm 99.999% sure you can even without knowing a single thing about it. This is the sort of thing Linux rules on. I also doubt your satement on Extfs sucking compared to NTFS4/5. Not only do I have faith in the Linux community to out program Microsoft when blindfolded and typing with their toes, but I have to doubt that you have extensive knowledge on either. I do admit that I have very limited knowledge on either myself, so I can't give a definitive answer here either. However I agree with your statement about using what you know best. I've got a Win2k machine set up with IIS (LAN only, so it's unbelieveable crapness isn't an issue) - I'm completely lost setting up Apache on this system, never mind under Linux! Although the support is better than M$'s! Anyway I think this thread means disregarding this - even though it doesn't say it, I took that as an unspoken meaning of the "If all software was available". Linux file security isn't as detailed as WinNT4/5/6 (I don't really understand MS's security style, but Linux can only have permissions set for the owner, the owner's group (ie a devel team in a project) and for everyone else, whereas WinNT has a multitude of options for any combination). However, this isn't much use with an OS that isn't secure. Linux, while having limitied permission settings, at least keeps these files much more secure. Please feel free to point out, laugh at and correct my countless factual errors now :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KornDogg Posted October 30, 2001 Share Posted October 30, 2001 The file size thing I was talking about was not on the size of the file itself, but the space it took up. Example: on my forum there are aproximately 20K text files that contain the posts. Each of these files are about 512b-1k in size. The cluster size by default on that partition was about (purely guestimated) 4K. I looked on how to format this partition with another cluster size, but after about 30 minutes of going through man pages I figured it wasn't worth the trouble. The man pages are cryptic and poorly written most of the time in my experience. How long it would take to figure it out on an NT box (the current OS I am in)? Let's go to "Help" (right off of the start menu) Now go to the index tab, and type in "format" on the search box, then double click on the "format command" entry. It now opens 3 topics, Untitled #0, #1, and #2. I click #0 (it is the first one listed) and about 1/3rd down the page, I see the /a switch. This takes me a total of 30-45 seconds to find, read, and resonably think I would comprehend this if not already known. Lets try this from the command line... C:WINNTSystem32format.exe /? About halfway down the console screen (if you have it set to default size) you will see the /a switch listed along with a decent explanation of what it does and what values are accepted for each file system type. Let's also say that I use the GUI to format the disk. There on the first window after right clicking and choosing format from "Disk Administrator" or from right clicking the drive in "My Computer", you will see about halfway down the window there is the option to change your allocation size. I've set up xBSD Solaris, linux servers with samba, bind, apache, NIS, NFS, SSH, just about anything I could think of for a learning experience. I won't knock them for the virtues that they do have (they run on a minimum of resources, are usually a little quicker than a Win32 OS, etc.), but the user friendliness sucks. I don't want to waste hours a week performing adminitrative tasks that can be done on a Win32 machine in a fraction of the time. Remote management is now becoming easier with the Win OS's, which make things ever easier than before. Also to address the *nix file system security: I would rather use NTFS security because you don't have to create 100's of special groups on your boxes for more customized access rights (and why should I create another group on the server when the file owner can set it up themselves). A networked box is only as secure as it's adminitrator's awareness is. Most of your system admins that use NT/2000 don't keep up with it enough to understand how important security is. Most of your linux admins already know and do keep thier machines patched, etc. Example... people try to learn system adminitration and network engineering off of a windows platform because it is familiar. The only reason linux has taken the market share that it has now is because it is free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MulletRobZ Posted October 31, 2001 Share Posted October 31, 2001 Originally posted by XainI think you are wrong - I just made a 2 byte file and it measured at 2 bytes. However in NTFS5 it took 512bytes, FAT32 took 4KB and FAT16 took 8KB. OK, everyone knows FAT is a joke and the Linux machine isn't measuring filename size and such so it's not giving a complete reading, but it's not limited to 1KB or more. Nope! You're screwed up here! Here's how much a 2 byte file takes up : NTFS5 : 2 KB FAT32 : 16 KB FAT16 : 32 KB It also depends greatly on the hard drive size. Larger hard drives tend to have larger clusters! :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E3L Posted October 31, 2001 Share Posted October 31, 2001 I've seen a referance table about this somewhere, cant remeber where, LOL.. maybe someone should look it up / make one :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KornDogg Posted October 31, 2001 Share Posted October 31, 2001 Also to add to Webgraph's statement. You can control your allocation size on NTFS 4&5 down to 512 bytes. I'm not sure if you can go less in linux (chances are you can) but you start getting into alot of overhead for the file system. However it all goes back to the user friendliness. Why waste my time (especially if I am salaried) trying to figure out what to do when I know I can find the answer in usually 25% of the time or less. Edited for a typo (512k changed to 512 bytes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quboid Posted October 31, 2001 Share Posted October 31, 2001 OK, I'll accept that - I was basing my figures off Windows Explorer's Size of Disc entry under file properties - co-incidently my 3 Windows partitions are NTFS5, FAT32 and FAT16 :) I guess it was asking too much for these values to be true. EDIT: Spelling errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy026 Posted October 31, 2001 Share Posted October 31, 2001 Okay first of all, Linux is the kernel and it is made by linus which is in fact based of minix, second: Linux does have perfect USB support all my USB stuff works fine in it. and Lucent and PCTel win modems also work fine in linux My lucent modem works fine but real modems are still better anyway. Third those little "bomb" files are not the OS crashing those are called "coredumps" it is the same as the "Microsoft error reporting" pretty much. It is normally caused by a poorly coded program crashing (Like crappy shareware ) which does not make the OS crash in any way. and you take that core file and send it to the makers and there is a error reporting tool like MS has also. thats the same thing MS is doingwhen error reporting is sending windows coredumps to them same thing.. When Linux really crashes its a kernel panic and trust me you know when that happens :D but if you have it setup right and your using a stable kernel, you shouldn't ever see it. By the way i'm not a MS basher or a linux zelot but I use both and like them both fine and I want OSX to I like all dirrernt OS's and like to play with them.. But just clearing all that up :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikyouCrow Posted October 31, 2001 Share Posted October 31, 2001 Originally posted by directuniversal Not that it has faults...but it still sucks anyway. I would prefer Windows 95 over it, LOL. as ****ty as Me is, it's the fastest IE WinOS (with Quick Launch) i've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikyouCrow Posted October 31, 2001 Share Posted October 31, 2001 Originally posted by Seeker22 Okay first of all, Linux is the kernel and it is made by linus which is in fact based of minix, second: Linux does have perfect USB support all my USB stuff works fine in it. and Lucent and PCTel win modems also work fine in linux My lucent modem works fine but real modems are still better anyway. Third those little "bomb" files are not the OS crashing those are called "coredumps" it is the same as the "Microsoft error reporting" pretty much. It is normally caused by a poorly coded program crashing (Like crappy shareware ) which does not make the OS crash in any way. and you take that core file and send it to the makers and there is a error reporting tool like MS has also. thats the same thing MS is doingwhen error reporting is sending windows coredumps to them same thing.. When Linux really crashes its a kernel panic and trust me you know when that happens :D but if you have it setup right and your using a stable kernel, you shouldn't ever see it. By the way i'm not a MS basher or a linux zelot but I use both and like them both fine and I want OSX to I like all dirrernt OS's and like to play with them.. But just clearing all that up :) hmmm... MINIX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy026 Posted October 31, 2001 Share Posted October 31, 2001 I know what MINIX is but thanks :) Linus did not like MINIX so he made his own LINUX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quboid Posted October 31, 2001 Share Posted October 31, 2001 Also to address the *nix file system security: I would rather use NTFS security because you don't have to create 100's of special groups on your boxes for more customized access rights (and why should I create another group on the server when the file owner can set it up themselves). A networked box is only as secure as it's adminitrator's awareness is. Most of your system admins that use NT/2000 don't keep up with it enough to understand how important security is. Most of your linux admins already know and do keep thier machines patched, etc. Example... people try to learn system adminitration and network engineering off of a windows platform because it is familiar. The only reason linux has taken the market share that it has now is because it is free. That's very true about security only being as good as the admin - but with top admins one both, the Linux machine will be more secure. Also, you make the group method of Linux sound a lot worse than it is. It's not as good as with NT I completely agree - but it's hardly a big problem for 99.9% of people. I've got to disagree with your claim about the market share! Not only is NT not as secure, IIS is pathetic in it's vunerablility with viruses popping up frequently. Of course, using Apache under NT fixes that. However nothing fixes the slowness other than a Linux install. Remember when MS tried to switch Hotmail from a Unix system to an NT system? The servers died under the load and MS had to swallow their pride and switch back. OK, that wasn't Linux, but it was a similar OS against NT on the same machine - and the Unix (Solaros I think) won easily. Likewise MSN.com runs on many NT servers - MS could save a lot of money by having a tenth of the number of Unix/Linux servers if they could admit that NT doesn't do a good enough job. There have been many well documented cases of email servers running NT and MS's email server handling less than 100th of the mail of a Linux box. The only reason MS has the market share they have is because of advertising and gullible and mystifyingly MS loving managers. I don't mean that as a personal attack - you seem to know what you are talking about. I mean the pointy haired bosses who think they know best, especially when consultants from the likes of the What-do-you-all-em Group here in the UK advising NT (who have recently changed to advising Linux, can't for the life of me remember their name). Linux was based off Minix, but the similarities never were much, they're about nothing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PixelCloud Posted October 31, 2001 Share Posted October 31, 2001 Originally posted by Webgraph Linux is the best, despite that it has no support for USB Devices nor can I get my Winmodem working properly just yet! It is the most stable OS I have ever used, even when I compared it to Windows 2000! It might not have as much hardware support, but that will be fixed sometime soon as more and more computer users and developers are leaning towards the Open-Source community! I find it as user-friendly as all Windows distributions, except XP until I test Windows XP Professional! Open Source isn't that great... more people to **** up your computer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconman Posted October 31, 2001 Share Posted October 31, 2001 :) ~ Win XP RULES ~ :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KornDogg Posted November 1, 2001 Share Posted November 1, 2001 In response to IIS being less secure than apache.... Does Apache have any built in scripting engine? I think not. That is the source of IIS's problems is that it is loaded with more features. I know of an OS that is more secure than anything that has ever een. It's called nothing... you lose the features and gain the security. The only reason Apache can claim that they have not had any problems like IIS has had. If everyone was at IIS 2.0 (before ASP was brought in) then you would not have had problems like code red. Call up RedHat one day and ask them why linuxconf is not installed by default on thier version 7.1, you might be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLegendOfMart Posted November 1, 2001 Share Posted November 1, 2001 Id have to say linux, its much more stable than any NT Core, the only thing that stops me from using it as my primary OS is compatibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
configure Veteran Posted November 1, 2001 Veteran Share Posted November 1, 2001 You're experiencing hardware compabilities? What doesn't compatible? :ermm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxicfume Veteran Posted November 1, 2001 Veteran Share Posted November 1, 2001 either XP or OSX :roll: 'nuff :right: EDIT: YES! as King Mustard said, BeOS all the way!! it was really stable and quite fast! I heard it had a really clean API too, but for some reason, no one was really interested...sigh...Hope it didn't die away :dead: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
young_chap80 Posted November 1, 2001 Share Posted November 1, 2001 hehe that'd be fast ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quboid Posted November 2, 2001 Share Posted November 2, 2001 Originally posted by KornDogg In response to IIS being less secure than apache.... Does Apache have any built in scripting engine? I think not. That is the source of IIS's problems is that it is loaded with more features. I know of an OS that is more secure than anything that has ever een. It's called nothing... you lose the features and gain the security. The only reason Apache can claim that they have not had any problems like IIS has had. If everyone was at IIS 2.0 (before ASP was brought in) then you would not have had problems like code red. Call up RedHat one day and ask them why linuxconf is not installed by default on thier version 7.1, you might be surprised. Apache can run ASP scripts and still be secure. It's not losing features, it's just keeping features like ASP (or PHP, Perl and database accessing) under control to stop them from doing rough operations while maintaining full functionality (at least full from my experience). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts