Pigs do fly

FatBytestard inscribed forevermore utilizing silicon chips::

> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:08:37 -0700, John Bowling <johnlb2002.DeleteThis@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>They also need to fix the fragmentation problems, the corrupting registry,
>>and the constant reboot on any install, including most updates.
>
>
> You have obviously been out of the loop for several years. Your mindset
> is that of a WIN 95 dope that is reluctant to upgrade.
>
> FAT32 fragged. NTFS does not.

What kind of bullshit is that? Not only does NTFS become highly fragmented,
the third party defragmenters are light years ahead of that offered from MS
that come with WinXP and Vista (including the version obfuscatedly named
Windows 7).

Else why would the Microsoft Knowledgebase have all these discussions about
it?

http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?form=MSHOME&mkt=en-US&setlang...-US&q=w

--
Later,
Darrell

On 2009-07-24, FatBytestard <FatBytestard.TakeThisOut@somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:08:37 -0700, John Bowling <johnlb2002.TakeThisOut@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>They also need to fix the fragmentation problems, the corrupting registry,
>>and the constant reboot on any install, including most updates.
>
>
> You have obviously been out of the loop for several years. Your mindset
> is that of a WIN 95 dope that is reluctant to upgrade.
>
> FAT32 fragged. NTFS does not.

Now that was a real statement!

You think that since this is a suse group people here know nothing
about NTFS?

Go figure!

Vahis
--
"Sunrise 4:43am (EEST), sunset 10:08pm (EEST) at Espoo, Finland (17:24 hours daylight)"
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.4-default #1 SMP 2009-06-01 09:57:12 +0200 x86_64
7:52am up 39 days 16:26, 13 users, load average: 1.80, 1.43, 0.76

On Jul 23, 9:49 pm, FatBytestard
<FatBytest... DeleteThis @somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:08:37 -0700, John Bowling <johnlb2... DeleteThis @cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >They also need to fix the fragmentation problems, the corrupting registry,
> >and the constant reboot on any install, including most updates.
>
>  You have obviously been out of the loop for several years.  Your mindset
> is that of a WIN 95 dope that is reluctant to upgrade.
>
>   FAT32 fragged.  NTFS does not.

TAKE FLIGHT FAGGOT AND GO TO HELL TRAITOR

I AM PROTEUS

> You think that since this is a suse group people here know nothing
> about NTFS?

all i (think i) know about NTFS is that it began life as a joint 'New
Technology' project between IBM and M$ as OS/2's HPFS.... which went
on under IBM development to be a pretty fine file system.....but M$
took the same roots and by building in secret traps and blind alleys
to keep Warp (and everyone else) out, screwed that pooch up real good!

NTFS = Nice Try File System

--
DenverD (Linux Counter 282315) via Thunderbird 3.0.1-1.1, KDE 3.5.7,
openSUSE Linux 10.3, 2.6.22.19-0.3-default #1 SMP i686 athlon

In <7csp5jF28n8iqU1.RemoveThis@mid.individual.net> Darrell Stec:

[Snip...]

> Microsoft Knowledgebase have all these discussions about it

"FatBytestard" ignores truth. Propaganda's much more "useful" (of course).

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
I toss GoogleGroup posts from gitgo (http://improve-usenet.org).

Harold Stevens wrote:
>
>> Microsoft Knowledgebase have all these discussions about it
>
> "FatBytestard" ignores truth. Propaganda's much more "useful" (of course).
>

Of course. It's been Microsoft's marketing strategy for years.


jc

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:04:35 GMT, Vahis <waxborg.RemoveThis@gmail.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2009-07-24, FatBytestard <FatBytestard.RemoveThis@somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:08:37 -0700, John Bowling <johnlb2002.RemoveThis@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>They also need to fix the fragmentation problems, the corrupting registry,
>>>and the constant reboot on any install, including most updates.
>>
>>
>> You have obviously been out of the loop for several years. Your mindset
>> is that of a WIN 95 dope that is reluctant to upgrade.
>>
>> FAT32 fragged. NTFS does not.
>
>Now that was a real statement!
>
>You think that since this is a suse group people here know nothing
>about NTFS?
>
>Go figure!
>
>Vahis

How many have bruised toes?

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:59:22 +0200, DenverD <spam.trap.DeleteThis@SOMEwhere.dk>
wrote:

> screwed that pooch up real good!


That phrase has been going through my mind a lot lately.

Only related more to what our "leaders" are doing to US.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:16:04 -0500, Harold Stevens
<wookie DeleteThis @joker.localdomain> wrote:

>In <7csp5jF28n8iqU1 DeleteThis @mid.individual.net> Darrell Stec:
>
>[Snip...]
>
>> Microsoft Knowledgebase have all these discussions about it
>
>"FatBytestard" ignores truth. Propaganda's much more "useful" (of course).


You're an idiot (of course).

On 2009-07-24, FatBytestard <FatBytestard RemoveThis @somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:08:37 -0700, John Bowling <johnlb2002 RemoveThis @cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>They also need to fix the fragmentation problems, the corrupting registry,
>>and the constant reboot on any install, including most updates.
>
>
> You have obviously been out of the loop for several years. Your mindset
> is that of a WIN 95 dope that is reluctant to upgrade.
>
> FAT32 fragged. NTFS does not.

It just so happened that I installed an XP on an external drive
yesterday evening. I just finished the installation with all updates,
maybe 50 of them, a couple of applications like Firefox with some plugins,
just enough to check that everything is running.
I thought I'd go on in the morning.

The disk was left on my desk in my bedroom and the machine was left on.
The machine is quite quiet but the disk was on the table.

The drive woke me several times with its activity.

This morning I checked. The drive was still randomly but very often
active. Nothing seemed to be goin on.

I checked the fragmentation: 14% (30 GB drive.
Now, that's something a _fresh_ install like 9 to 10 hours old.


Vahis
--
"Sunrise 4:45am (EEST), sunset 10:06pm (EEST) at Espoo, Finland (17:20 hours daylight)"
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.4-default #1 SMP 2009-06-01 09:57:12 +0200 x86_64
9:39am up 40 days 18:13, 13 users, load average: 0.55, 0.79, 0.80

> This morning I checked. The drive was still randomly but very often
> active. Nothing seemed to be goin on.

well, open top (or 'ps -e' or or or or) and look to see (right..ha!)

--
DenverD (Linux Counter 282315) via Thunderbird 3.0.1-1.1, KDE 3.5.7,
openSUSE Linux 10.3, 2.6.22.19-0.3-default #1 SMP i686 athlon

On 2009-07-25, DenverD <spam.trap DeleteThis @SOMEwhere.dk> wrote:
>> This morning I checked. The drive was still randomly but very often
>> active. Nothing seemed to be goin on.
>
> well, open top (or 'ps -e' or or or or) and look to see (right..ha!)
>

Yeah, top for windows

There's ProcessExplorer though.
Services.exe is one active bitch.
Writing logs and stuff I guess. I don't know windows well enougn under
the hood to be able to figure out much there.
And I don't care, there's nothing much one could do anyway.

A lot of stuff is read and written in Linux, too.
But a proper (out of several available) file system is in use.

My current server installation has been running about a year now 24x7
and maybe 3% of the system drive is non-contiguous.

And it's been working, that piece of windows wasn't supposed to do
anything and it was fragged in a few hours.

Vahis
--
"Sunrise 4:45am (EEST), sunset 10:06pm (EEST) at Espoo, Finland (17:20 hours daylight)"
http://waxborg.servepics.com
Linux 2.6.25.20-0.4-default #1 SMP 2009-06-01 09:57:12 +0200 x86_64
10:56am up 40 days 19:30, 14 users, load average: 0.67, 0.50, 0.51

jc wrote:
>
> "Harold Stevens" wrote:
>> Microsoft was in violation of the GPL (General Public License) on the
>> Hyper-V code it released to open source this week.
>>
>> After Redmond covered itself in glory by opening up the code, it now
>> looks like it may have acted simply to head off any potentially
>> embarrassing legal dispute over violation of the GPL. The rest was
>> theater.
>>
>> More:
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/23/microsoft_hyperv_gpl_violation/
>>
>
> "The combining of open- and closed- code in the Hyper-V driver may well
> have been a case of individuals not really knowing what they were doing,
> not understanding the license, or hoping to get away with it."
>
> Or, MS thought they could manipulate GPL to their advantage.
>
>
> jc
>

I think this code has been seen by someone who did not
signed the NDA (yet). They had no choice. They had to admit
they used GPL-ed software in that chunk of code. Be sure
this mistake will not be made again.

However... will it be the only GPL-ed code?

Is it too fare streched to think the kernel of
Vista/Windows7 contains a some (maybe a lot) GPL-ed software?

Do not forget their original "Longhorn" was becoming a heavy
weight crawling slow monster. They had to make a design turn
- and fast! And all of the sudden they made a completely new
design in a relatively short time. Do not forget Longhorn
had a VERY long development time and they are getting
nowhere. And then - out of the "blue" - they got a far more
usable system.

People whom seen that code also have to sign an NDA before
even glaring at it from a distance. Those NDA's are
carefully designed. If someone should talk about something
"touchy" his life and career will be ruined forever. Also
those people are carefully selected from a group of
trustworthy people, and will keep their mouth tightly shut.

Well - I cannot prove anything (and certainly not signed a
NDA), but I have my suspicions..