[Sussex] Why Linux doesn't need defrag

[John D.]

On Tuesday 22 August 2006 14:25, linux at oneandoneis2.org wrote:
> 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)
Well I only read Dominics' article because of the traffic here on the SLUG 
list.

God alone knows that I haven't the faintest idea of the technicalities of the 
piece, but I thought it was well written and found it quite interesting i.e. 
an enjoyable read - written in a manner that even a nugget like myself can 
understand.

regards

John D.