[Sussex] Why Linux doesn't need defrag

[linux at oneandoneis2.org]

Quoting Alan Pope <alan at popey.com>:

> The questions around platters and clusters weren't cleared up I think.

That was omission rather than error - but I might go into more detail  
& include those when I get time.

> Have you seen the rebuttal?

Which one? The KDE one?

> Oh come on! It's a very emotive subject. Any article which takes a stance
> that Linux is better than Windows for *any* reason is going to get peoples
> backs up.

Absolutely - I've written such articles & I know how they get reacted to :o)

But I can't see this as one of them: This wasn't "Why Linux  
filesystems are better than Windows ones" - it's an undeniable fact  
that Windows is supplied with a defrag utility and you are advised to  
use it regularly; and Linux isn't, and you're not. Creating a simple  
explanation as to why this is so is hardly a "them and us" kind of  
argument, surely?

> "Why Windows can't handle large files well"
> "Why Windows security is non existent"
> "Why Windows isn't ready for the desktop"

Actually, titles like those are the reason I put the thing on Digg  
myself - I've been on the receiving end of a Digg that biased the  
article considerably & I didn't want somebody putting it on Digg as  
"Why Windows is so bad at filesystems" or some such. . .

Had I known about the option to avoid being dugg at all, I might well  
have gone for that instead. But I've not had such issues with Digg  
visitors before, so maybe I wouldn't. Hindsight, eh? :o)

Cheers

Dominic