Why do people switch to Linux 13487

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:58:27 +0000, Aragorn

*All* file systems fragment, even the ones on under Linux. It's true that the allocation strategy used in Linux file systems does mitigate it to a degree, but the they *do* still fragment. With NTFS a utility is available to resolve it. If an NTFS file system is "degraded" because of fragmentation, somebody is asleep at the wheel, because that's a problem that is easily fixed.

Not a clone, but there are waaay more similarities than differences, especially at the core:

TABLE 2: Significant VMS and NT Similarities

VMS: Process scheduler implements 32 priority levels split into halves NT: Process scheduler implements 32 priority levels split into halves VMS: Process scheduler never lowers a process' priority below the priority level the application programmed NT: Process scheduler never lowers a process' priority below the priority level the application programmed VMS: Uses boosting to handle CPU hogging NT: Uses boosting to handle CPU hogging VMS: Supports SMP NT: Supports SMP VMS: Digital introduces kernel threads in VMS 7.0 NT: NT 3.1 uses kernel threads VMS: Relies heavily on memory-mapped files NT: Relies heavily on memory-mapped files VMS: Uses demand-paged virtual memory for physical memory management NT: Uses demand-paged virtual memory for physical memory management VMS: Uses working sets with a clock-based replacement algorithm NT: Uses working sets with a clock-based replacement algorithm VMS: Balance Set Manager uses swapping to handle memory demands NT: Balance Set Manager doesn't use swapping VMS: Supports a layered-driver model throughout the device driver stacks NT: Supports a layered-driver model throughout the device driver stacks VMS: Implements asynchronous packet-based I-O commands NT: Implements asynchronous packet-based I-O commands VMS: Represents resources as objects managed by an Object Manager NT: Represents resources as objects managed by an Object Manager VMS: Security subsystem based on objects with access control lists (ACLs) NT: Security subsystem based on objects with ACLs VMS: MONITOR NT: Performance Monitor VMS: BACKUP NT: NT Backup

In short...You're wrong.

Look at the table "Security subsystem based on objects with ACLs." NT was *designed* to support ACLs. The fact that it's *possible* for someone to install it in a manner which defeats a design goal, doesn't mean the design is bad. After all, it's certainly possible to install a Linux box in a manner that makes it insecure.

Nope:

Kernel 2.4.29 patches and enable xfs acl support.

Kernel 2.4.25 patches (old) and enable xfs acl support.

As the table shows, security was a core subsystem of Windows as well. The Windows subsystem however is based on ACLs, thus providing finer granularity, and the flexibility to apply access control to other system objects besides files. The u-g-o permission model was fine for when Linux was first born, but ACLs are a much better alternative. Even though they are "available" on Linux today, they certainly aren't in widespread use.

It is unless you've got something to suggest that VMS was not "a multiuser system where security was designed in from the start."

-- Cheers T.G. Reaper