22 Feb
2017
22 Feb
'17
4:58 a.m.
Now that brings up another reason why I think Linux won. Most of the early Linux
developers were
educated partly in the MS/PC/DR DOS world. They wanted a Unix, but they had bought IBM PC
clones
with MS DOS and were familiar with the DOS way of doing things.
Linux's disk partitioning is very familiar to anyone who's familiar with the DOS
way of disk partitioning.
BSD's disk partitioning is a culture shock. (I know. I'd gotten used to the DOS
way of doing things after
learning about disk partitioning with my 486 and IBM OS/2 - the hard way. I tried Linux
and the
terminology was the same and due to a neat trick with the DOS filesystem I could
experiment with it on
an unchanged DOS system. I then tried FreeBSD and I didn't understand the
terminology. So I stuck with
what I'd learnt.)
FWLIW :)
Wesley Parish
Quoting Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com>:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 03:28:13PM -0500, Steve
Nickolas wrote:
The DOS file system, while stupid, was very robust in the face of
crashes
(sort of had to be, he says slyly).
"I have supposed that he who buys a Method means to learn it." - Ferdinand Sor,
Method for Guitar
"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." -- Samuel
Goldwyn
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Larry McVoy wrote:
>In terms of crash worthyness, ext2 was better. I think the ext2
people
took the
approach that they wanted to be as robust as dos but with
performance. And they made it, it's some very nice work.
Wouldn't "as robust as DOS" be a *bad* thing?