Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Hairy State of Linux Filesystems

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the when-shrinkage-is-what-you-want dept.

Data Storage 187

RazvanM writes "Do the OSes really shrink? Perhaps the user space (MySQL, CUPS) is getting slimmer, but how about the internals? Using as a metric the number of external calls between the filesystem modules and the rest of the Linux kernel I argue that this is not the case. The evidence is a graph that shows the evolution of 15 filesystems from 2.6.11 to 2.6.28 along with the current state (2.6.28) for 24 filesystems. Some filesystems that stand out are: nfs for leading in both number of calls and speed of growth; ext4 and fuse for their above-average speed of growth and 9p for its roller coaster path."

cancel ×

187 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first one (-1, Offtopic)

Ingcuervo (1349561) | more than 5 years ago | (#26818909)

finally

Frick Apple Fags (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819623)

MobileMe Terms of Service
1. Your Acceptance of Terms
Welcome to MobileMe

The following Terms of Service (âoeTOSâ) are between you and Apple and constitute a legal agreement that governs your use of the MobileMe product, software, services and websites (collectively referred to as the âoeServiceâ). You must agree to these TOS before you can use the Service. You can agree to these TOS by: a) actually using the Service, or b) clicking a box that indicates you agree to the Service, where such a box is made available to you. If you do not agree to any of the following terms, please do not use the Service. You should print or otherwise save a copy of these TOS for your records. "Apple" as used herein means Apple Inc., located at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California and, where applicable, Apple Sales International, Hollyhill Industrial Estate, Hollyhill, Cork, Ireland.
Legal Authority

To use and/or register for the Service you must be: a) of legal age to form a binding contract with Apple, and b) cannot be a person barred from receiving the Service under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction, including the country in which you reside or from where you use the Service. By accepting these TOS you represent that you understand and agree to the foregoing. If you are under the required legal age, but at least 13 years old, you may still use the Service (subject to applicable local law), but only if the account you are using was created and registered by your parent or legal guardian (see Section 3 below for further details).
Updates

Apple may update or change these TOS from time to time and recommends that you review the TOS on a regular basis. You can review the most current version of the TOS at any time at http://www.apple.com/legal/mobileme/ [apple.com] . If Apple makes a change to the TOS, it will post the revised TOS on our website at the link as herein noted. You understand and agree that your continued use of the Service after the TOS has changed constitutes your acceptance of the TOS as revised. Without limiting the foregoing, if Apple makes a change to the TOS that materially impacts your use of the Service, Apple may post notice of any such change on our website and/or email you notice of any such change to your MobileMe account.
2. Description of the Service
System Requirements

Use of the Service requires one or more compatible devices, certain software and internet access with compatible ISP (broadband required for web applications); separate fees may apply. Some portions of the Service require Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard and iLife â(TM)08, available separately. Your use of the Service may be affected by certain combinations of hardware, software and/or internet access. High speed internet access is strongly recommended. Compatible device: Mac, PC, iPhone, or iPod touch. For Mac: Mac OS X v10.4.11, v10.5.4, or later; Safari 3, Firefox 2, or later. For PC: Windows Vista or Windows XP Home or Professional (SP2) or later; Internet Explorer 7, Safari 3, Firefox 2, or later; (Microsoft Outlook 2003 or later recommended). For iPhone and iPod touch: 2.0 software. iTunes 7.7 or later (free download from www.itunes.com/download). The Service is available in the following languages: English, French, Japanese and German.
Changing the Service

Apple reserves the right to modify or stop the Service (or any part thereof), either temporarily or permanently, at any time or from time to time, with or without prior notice to you. Without limiting the foregoing, Apple may post on our website and/or send email to your MobileMe account, notice of such changes to the Service. It is your responsibility to review our website and/or check your MobileMe email address for any such notices. You agree that Apple shall not be liable to you or any third party for any modification or cessation of the Service.
Limitations on Use

You agree to use the Service only for purposes as permitted by these TOS and any applicable law, regulation, or generally accepted practice in the applicable jurisdiction. The Service is designed for personal use and not intended to be used for commercial business purposes, including, but not limited to, transacting online sales or software distribution via an e-commerce site. MobileMe accounts are also not intended to be used for FTP access and downloading. Your MobileMe account is allocated certain levels of storage capacity and bandwidth for network traffic and email as described in the MobileMe feature pages. Exceeding any applicable limitation of bandwidth or storage capacity (for example, iDisk or e-mail account space) is prohibited. To view your current storage and data transfer or bandwidth allocations, log in to your MobileMe account page at https://secure.me.com/account [me.com] . In addition, if there is Excessive Usage on your account or any Sub-account (as defined in Section 3 below) , Apple reserves the right to temporarily disable access to information available from your account through a URL, or to "bounce" emails back to senders. âoeExcessive Usageâoe as used herein, may apply to storage and/or bandwidth capacities, and means your usage within a given month or day (as applicable) greatly exceeds the average level of monthly or daily usage of MobileMeâ(TM)s members generally. Repeated violations may result in termination of your account. Apple reserves the right to modify these limitations on use at any time.
3. Your Use of the Service
Member Account

When you accept these TOS and complete the MobileMe sign up process, you become the MobileMe âoeMember Accountâ holder. You are required to select a unique name upon sign up that will be used for your account (your âoeSubscriber IDâ). You may be permitted to purchase and add additional âoeSub-accountsâ (also known as âoeFamily Memberâ accounts) to your Member Account. You must select a separate Subscriber ID for each Sub-account you create. You are responsible for all activity that takes place on your Member Account and any associated Sub-accounts.
Sub-account

If you use a Sub-account, the Member Account holder has full control over your Sub-account and may alter, close or end the Sub-account at any time, as well as request information related to your use of the Sub-account, including machine and service use information, without notice to you.
Account Security

Upon creating your Subscriber ID you will be required to select a password. Please choose a strong password and do not reveal your password to others. You agree that you are responsible for keeping your password confidential and secure, and further understand that you are solely responsible and liable for any activities that occur under your Subscriber ID. If you suspect or become aware of any unauthorized use of your account please contact MobileMe Support at http://www.apple.com/support/mobileme/ww [apple.com] .
Children

You must be at least 13 years of age to use the Service. Children between the ages of 13-18 (or older as required by local law) may be granted access to the Service but only if they are added as a Sub-account to a Member Account. By adding a child as a Sub-Account member under your Member Account, you certify that you are of legal age and are the parent and/or legal guardian of that child. By adding a minor to your Member Account, you give them permission to access and use the Service, and it is your responsibility to determine whether the Service and/or Content (as defined below in Section 5) provided via the Service is appropriate for a minor. Please also remind any minors that conversing with strangers on the internet can be dangerous and take appropriate precautions to protect your child including monitoring their use of the Service.
Sign Up Obligations

You agree that all information you provide to Apple during the sign up process (âoeSign Up Dataâ) will be true, accurate, complete and current information, and that you shall maintain and update the Sign Up Data as needed throughout your term to keep it accurate and current. Failure to provide accurate, current and complete Sign Up Data may result in the suspension and/or termination of your account.
Additional Obligations or Terms of Use

Particular components or features of the Service, provided by Apple and/or its licensors, may be subject to separate software or other license agreements or terms of use. You must read, accept, and agree to be bound by any such separate agreement as a condition of using these particular components or features of the Service.
No Conveyance

Nothing in these TOS shall be construed to convey to you any interest, title, or license in a Subscriber ID, email address, domain name, iChat ID, or similar resource used by you in connection with the Service.
No Right of Survivorship

You agree that your MobileMe account is non-transferable and that any rights to your Subscriber ID or Content within your account terminate upon your death. Upon receipt of a copy of a death certificate your account may be terminated and all Content within your account deleted. Contact support at http://www.apple.com/support/mobileme/ww [apple.com] for further assistance.
No Resale of Service

You agree that you will not reproduce, copy, duplicate, sell, resell, rent or trade the Service (or any part thereof) for any purpose.
4. Apple Privacy Policy

You understand that by using the Service, you consent and agree to the collection and use of certain information about you and your use of the Service in accordance with Appleâ(TM)s Privacy Policy. Information collected when you use the Service may include technical or diagnostic information related to your use that may be used by Apple to maintain, improve and enhance the Service. For more information please read our full privacy policy at http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/ [apple.com] . You further understand and agree that this information may be transferred to the United States and/or other countries for storage, processing and use by Apple and/or its affiliates.
5. Content and Your Conduct
Content

"Content" means any information that may be generated or encountered through use of the Service, such as data files, written text, software, music, graphics, photographs, images, sounds, videos, messages and any other like materials. You understand that all Content whether publicly posted or privately transmitted on the Service is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such Content originated. This means that you, and not Apple, are solely responsible for any Content you upload, download, post, email, transmit, store or otherwise make available through your use of the Service. You understand that by using the Service you may encounter Content that you may find offensive, indecent, or objectionable, and that you may expose others to Content that they may find objectionable. Apple does not control the Content posted via the Service, nor does it guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You understand and agree that your use of the Service and any Content is solely at your own risk.
Your Conduct

You agree that you will NOT use the Service to:

      1. upload, download, post, email, transmit, store or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harassing, threatening, harmful, tortious, defamatory, libelous,abusive, violent, obscene, vulgar, invasive of anotherâ(TM)s privacy, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or otherwise objectionable;
      2. stalk, harass, threaten or harm another;
      3. if you are an adult, request personal or other information from a minor (any person under the age of 18 or such other age as local law defines as a minor) who is not personally known to you, including but not limited to any of the following: full name or last name, home address, zip/postal code, telephone number, picture, or the names of the minor's school, church, athletic team or friends;
      4. pretend to be anyone, or any entity, you are not â" you may not impersonate or misrepresent yourself as another person (including celebrities), entity, another MobileMe subscriber, an Apple employee, or a civic or government leader, or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity, (Apple reserves the right to reject or block any Subscriber ID which could be deemed to be an impersonation or misrepresentation of your identity, or a misappropriation of another person's name or identity);
      5. engage in any copyright infringement or other intellectual property infringement, or disclose any trade secret or confidential information in violation of a confidentiality,employment, or nondisclosure agreement;
      6. post, send, transmit or otherwise make available any unsolicited or unauthorized email messages, advertising, promotional materials, junk mail, spam, or chain letters, including, without limitation, bulk commercial advertising and informational announcements;
      7. forge any TCP-IP packet header or any part of the header information in an email or a news group posting, or otherwise putting information in a header designed to mislead recipients as to the origin of any Content transmitted through the Service (âoespoofing");
      8. upload, post, email, transmit, store or otherwise make available any material that contains viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to harm,interfere or limit the normal operation of the Service (or any part thereof), or any other computer software or hardware;
      9. interfere with or disrupt the Service (including accessing the Service through any automated means, like scripts or web crawlers), or any servers or networks connected to the Service, or any policies, requirements or regulations of networks connected to the Service (including any unauthorized access to, use or monitoring of data or traffic thereon);
    10. plan or engage in any illegal activity; and/or
    11. gather and store personal information on any other users of the Service to be used in connection with any of the foregoing prohibited activities.

Removal of Content

You acknowledge that Apple is not responsible or liable in any way for any Content provided by others and has no duty to pre-screen such Content. However, Apple reserves the right at all times to determine whether Content is appropriate and in compliance with these TOS, and may pre-screen, move, refuse, modify and/or remove Content at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, if such Content is found to be in violation of these TOS or is otherwise objectionable.
Backup Your Content

You are responsible for backing up, to your own computer or other device, any important documents, images or other Content that you store or access via the Service. Apple does not guarantee or warrant that any Content you may store or access through the Service will not be subject to inadvertent damage, corruption or loss.
Access to Your Account and Content

You acknowledge and agree that Apple may access, use, preserve and/or disclose your account information and Content if legally required to do so or if we have a good faith belief that such access, use, disclosure, or preservation is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process or request; (b) enforce these TOS, including investigation of any potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Apple, its users or the public as required or pemitted by law.
Copyright Notice - DMCA

If you believe that any Content in which you claim copyright has been infringed by anyone using the Service, please contact Apple's Copyright Agent as described in our Copyright Policy at http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/claimsofcopyright.html [apple.com] . Apple may, in its sole discretion, suspend and/or terminate accounts of users that are found to be repeat infringers.
Violations of TOS

If while using the Service, you encounter Content you find inappropriate, or otherwise believe to be a violation of these TOS, you may report it by going to http://www.apple.com/support/mobileme/ww [apple.com] .
6. Payment Fees

You agree to pay all fees and charges specified when you signed up for the Service and any part thereof. All fees are exclusive of applicable taxes (e.g. sales, use, or value-added tax), unless otherwise stated, and you are solely responsible for the payment of any such taxes that may be imposed on your use of the Service.
Credit Card Authorization

You may be asked to provide Apple with a credit card number from a card issuer that we accept in order to activate your Service. Apple may seek authorization of your credit card account prior to your first purchase to validate that you can charge the applicable fees to access the Service. This authorization amount is typically the equivalent of one US dollar ($1USD). It is not a charge but may appear to reduce your available balance by the authorization amount until your cardâ(TM)s next billing cycle. Please contact your card issuer if you have additional questions regarding when this amount will be removed from your statement.
Payment Method

Apple will charge the annual subscription fee and any other additional fees you authorize to the charge or credit card account provided by you. By authorizing Apple to charge a credit card for the fees associated with your subscription, you are authorizing Apple to automatically continue charging that card (or any replacement card if the original card is renewed, lost, stolen, or changed for any reason by the card issuer, and the issuer informs Apple of the new replacement card account) for all fees or charges associated with your subscription including any renewal fees as described below. You authorize the card issuer to pay any amounts described herein and authorize Apple, or any other company that acts as a billing agent for Apple, to continue to attempt to charge all sums described herein to your credit card account until such amounts are paid in full. You agree to provide Apple updated information on your credit card upon Appleâ(TM)s request and any time the information earlier provided is no longer valid. If payment is not received by Apple from your credit card issuer or its agents, you agree to pay all amounts due upon demand by Apple.
Free Trial Period

Apple may offer you a one-time free trial period during which you can try out the Service for free (âoeFree Trial Periodâ). If you are participating in a Free Trial Period, you must cancel the Service by the end of the trial period to avoid incurring any charges. If you do not cancel the Service before the Free Trial Period expires, and we have informed you that the Service will automatically be converted into a paid subscription at the end of the Free Trial Period, then you authorize us to charge your credit card the applicable fees as indicated at the time you signed up for the Service. During the Free Trial Period, you agree that Apple will have the right (subject to applicable local law) to send you communications, notices and news about the Service to your MobileMe email address and to any alternate email address you may have provided. Local law may allow you to revoke your consent to receiving these communications at any time during the Free Trial Period. Upgrades to a Member Account (e.g. Family Pack or storage upgrade) are only available upon purchase of an annual subscription and are therefore not available to subscribers during the Free Trial Period. Apple reserves the right to modify, cancel and/or limit this Free Trial Period offer at any time.You may cancel your account at any time during the Free Trial Period by going to the Account Options section at https://secure.me.com/account [me.com] . Upon cancelling your account, you will lose all access to the Service and any data or information stored within your account. (See "Effects of Terminationâ below for additional details.)
Automatic Renewal of Annual Subscription

When you sign up online for the Service, your annual subscription will be set to automatically renew upon its expiration. This means that unless you cancel your account or change its renewal settings prior to its expiration, your account will automatically renew for another year. At the time of renewal, we will charge your credit card the then-current fees to renew the Service. About thirty (30) days prior to your expiration date we will notify you by email to your MobileMe email address that your account is about to renew and remind you that your credit card will be billed the indicated Service fees on the renewal date. You may change your renewal settings at any time by going to https://secure.me.com/account [me.com] .
Account Information and Billing Inquiries

You may consult your MobileMe account management page at https://secure.me.com/account [me.com] for details on your account information including payment method and billing currency. Apple shall send an electronic invoice to your MobileMe email address whenever any Service fees are charged to your account. If you believe you have been billed in error for the Service please notify us within 45 days of the billing date by contacting MobileMe Support at http://www.apple.com/support/mobileme/ww [apple.com] .
Cancellations and Refunds

All fees and charges paid by you in relation to the Service are nonrefundable, except as otherwise stated herein. Apple shall refund the applicable fees paid by you upon initial online sign up or renewal of the Service provided Apple receives such refund request within forty-five (45) days of the billing date for any such fees. To request a refund as described herein go to http://www.apple.com/support/mobileme/ww [apple.com] for more details. Applicable local law may vary this policy.

PLEASE NOTE: Boxed versions of the Service that are purchased through Apple Retail Stores, the Apple Online Store, or third party resellers must be activated within nine (9) months of the date of purchase and are not subject to the foregoing refund terms. Boxed versions of the Service must be returned to the original place of purchase and must follow the returns and refunds policies of those stores. Please review the applicable Apple Sales Policy at http://www.apple.com/legal/sales_policies/ [apple.com] .
Changes in Price

Apple may at any time, upon notice required by applicable law, change the price of the Service or any part thereof, or institute new charges or fees. Price changes and institution of new charges implemented during your subscription term will apply to subsequent subscription terms and to all new subscribers after the effective date of the change. If you do not agree to any such price changes, then you must cancel your account and and stop using the Service. Your continued use of the Service after the effective date of any such change shall constitute your acceptance of such change.
7. Content Submitted or Made Available by You on the Service
License from You

Except for material we may license to you, Apple does not claim ownership of the materials and/or Content you submit or make available on the Service. However, by submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public, you grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. Said license will terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you or Apple remove such Content from the public area. By submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public, you are representing that you are the owner of such material and/or have authorization to distribute it.
Changes to Content

You understand that in order to provide the Service and make your Content available thereon, Apple may transmit your Content across various public networks, in various media, and modify or change your Content to comply with technical requirements of connecting networks or devices. You agree that the license herein permits Apple to take any such actions.
8. Trademark Information

Apple, the Apple logo, MobileMe, the MobileMe logo and other Apple trademarks, service marks, graphics, and logos used in connection with the Service are trademarks or registered trademarks of Apple Inc. in the US and/or other countries. Other trademarks, service marks, graphics, and logos used in connection with the Service may be the trademarks of their respective owners. You are granted no right or license in any of the aforesaid trademarks, and further agree that you shall not remove, obscure, or alter any proprietary notices (including trademark and copyright notices) that may be affixed to or contained within the Service.
9. Software Appleâ(TM)s Proprietary Rights

You acknowledge and agree that Apple and/or its licensors own all legal right, title and interest in and to the Service, and any software provided to you as a part of and/or in connection with the Service (the âoeSoftwareâ), including any and all intellectual property rights that exist therein, whether registered or not, and wherever in the world they may exist. You further agree that the Service (including the Software, or any other part thereof) contains proprietary and confidential information that is protected by applicable intellectual property and other laws.

License From Apple Apple grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to use the Software as provided to you by Apple as a part of the Service and in accordance with these TOS; provided that you do not (and do not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile, or otherwise attempt to discover the source code (unless expressly permitted or required by law), sell, lease, sublicense, assign, grant a security interest in or otherwise transfer any right in the Software.
Export

You agree to abide by U.S. and other applicable export control laws and not to transfer from the U.S., by electronic transmission or otherwise, any Content or Software subject to restrictions under such laws to a destination prohibited under such laws, without first obtaining, and then complying with, any requisite government authorization. You further agree not to upload to your MobileMe account any data or software that cannot be exported without prior written government authorization, including, but not limited to, certain types of encryption software. This assurance and commitment shall survive termination of this Agreement.
Updates

As part of the Service, you may from time to time receive updates to the Software from Apple which may be automatically downloaded and installed to your device. These updates may include bug fixes, feature enhancements or improvements, or entirely new versions of the Software. You agree that Apple may automatically deliver such updates to you as part of the Service and you shall receive and install them as required.
10. Termination
Termination by You

You may terminate your account and/or stop using the Service at any time. To terminate your account contact MobileMe Support at http://www.apple.com/support/mobileme/ww [apple.com] . Any fees paid by you prior to your termination are nonrefundable (except as expressly permitted otherwise by these TOS), including any fees paid in advance for the term during which you terminate. Termination of your account shall not relieve you of any obligation to pay any accrued fees or charges.
Termination by Apple

Apple may at any time, under certain circumstances and without prior notice, immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your account and/or access to the Service. Cause for such termination shall include, but not be limited to: (a) violations of the TOS or any other policies or guidelines that are referenced herein and/or posted on the Service; (b) a request by you to cancel or terminate your account; (c) discontinuance or material modification to the Service or any part thereof; (d) a request and/or order from law enforcement, a judicial body, or other government agency; (e) where provision of the Service to you is or may become unlawful; (f) unexpected technical or security issues or problems; (g) your participation in fraudulent or illegal activities; or (h) failure to pay any fees owed by you in relation to the Service. Any such termination or suspension shall be made by Apple in its sole discretion, without any refund to you of any prepaid fees or amounts, and Apple will not be responsible to you or any third party for any damages that may result or arise out of such termination or suspension of your account and/or access to the Service.

Effects of Termination Upon termination of your account you lose all access to the Service and any portions thereof, including, but not limited to, your Member Account (any Sub-accounts thereunder), Subscriber ID, email account, iDisk, domains, iChat account and MobileMe Gallery albums. In addition, Apple shall delete all information and data stored in or as a part of your account(s) including, but not limited to, data files, email, albums and preferences. Any individual components of the Service that you may have used subject to separate software license agreements (e.g. Backup software) will also be terminated in accordance with those license agreements.
11. Links and Third Party Materials

Certain Content, components or features of the Service may include materials from third parties and/or hyperlinks to other web sites, resources or Content. Because Apple may have no control over such third party sites and/or materials, you acknowledge and agree that Apple is not responsible for the availability of such sites or resources, and does not endorse or warrant the accuracy of any such sites or resources, and shall in no way be liable or responsible for any Content, advertising, products or materials on or available from such sites or resources. You further acknowledge and agree that Apple shall not be responsible or liable in any way for any damages you incur or allege to have incurred, either directly or indirectly, as a result of your use and/or reliance upon any such Content, advertising, products or materials on or available from such sites or resources.
12. Disclaimer of Warranties

SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN WARRANTIES, AS SUCH, TO THE EXTENT SUCH EXCLUSIONS ARE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY APPLICABLE LAW, SOME OF THE EXCLUSIONS SET FORTH BELOW MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SERVICE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS. APPLE AND ITS AFFILIATES, SUBSIDIARIES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, PARTNERS AND LICENSORS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN PARTICULAR, APPLE AND ITS AFFILIATES, SUBSIDIARIES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, PARTNERS AND LICENSORS MAKE NO WARRANTY THAT (I) THE SERVICE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS; (II) YOUR USE OF THE SERVICE WILL BE TIMELY, UNINTERRUPTED, SECURE OR ERROR-FREE; (III) ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED BY YOU AS A RESULT OF THE SERVICE WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE; AND (IV) ANY DEFECTS OR ERRORS IN THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED TO YOU AS PART OF THE SERVICE WILL BE CORRECTED.

ANY MATERIAL DOWNLOADED OR OTHERWISE OBTAINED THROUGH THE USE OF THE SERVICE IS ACCESSED AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK, AND YOU WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR DEVICE OR LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS FROM THE DOWNLOAD OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL.

NO ADVICE OR INFORMATION, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, OBTAINED BY YOU FROM APPLE OR THROUGH OR FROM THE SERVICE SHALL CREATE ANY WARRANTY NOT EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE TOS.
13. Limitation of Liability

SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, AS SUCH, TO THE EXTENT SUCH EXCLUSIONS OR LIMITATIONS ARE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY APPLICABLE LAW, SOME OF THE EXCLUSIONS OR LIMITATIONS SET FORTH BELOW MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT APPLE AND ITS AFFILIATES, SUBSIDIARIES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, PARTNERS AND LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES , INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA, COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF APPLE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (I) THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SERVICE; (II) THE UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (III) THE DELETION OF, CORRUPTION OF, OR FAILURE TO STORE AND/OR SEND OR RECEIVE YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA ON OR THROUGH THE SERVICE; (IV) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE SERVICE; AND (IV) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE SERVICE.
14. Indemnity

You agree to defend, indemnify and hold Apple, its affiliates, subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, agents, partners and licensors harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneysâ(TM) fees, made by a third party, relating to or arising from: (a) any Content you submit, post, transmit, or otherwise make available through the Service; (b) your use of the Service; (c) any violation by you of these TOS; or (d) your violation of any rights of another. This obligation shall survive the termination or expiration of these TOS and/or your use of the Service. You acknowledge that you are responsible for all use of the Service using your account, including any use by Sub-accounts, and that these TOS apply to any and all usage of your account, including any use by Sub-accounts. You agree to comply with these TOS and to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Apple from and against any and all claims and demands arising from usage of your account or any Sub-account, whether or not such usage is expressly authorized by you.
15. Notices

Apple may provide you with notices regarding the Service, including changes to these TOS, by email to your MobileMe email address (and/or other alternate email address if provided), by regular mail, or by postings on our website and/or the Service.
16. Governing Law

Except to the extent expressly provided in the following paragraph, these TOS and the relationship between you and Apple shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflicts of law provisions. You and Apple agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of Santa Clara, California, to resolve any dispute or claim arising from these TOS.If (a) you are not a U.S. citizen; (b) you do not reside in the U.S.; (c) you are not accessing the Service from the U.S.; and (d) you are a citizen of one of the countries identified below, you hereby agree that any dispute or claim arising from these TOS shall be governed by the applicable law set forth below, without regard to any conflict of law provisions, and you hereby irrevocably submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located in the state, province or country identified below whose law governs:
If you are a citizen of: Governing law and forum:
Any European Union country Laws of Republic of Ireland, Republic of Ireland

Specifically excluded from application to this Agreement is that law known as the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods.
17. General

These TOS constitute the entire agreement between you and Apple, govern your use of the Service and completely replace any prior agreements between you and Apple in relation to the the Service. You may also be subject to additional terms and conditions that may apply when you use affiliate services, third-party content, or third-party software. If any part of these TOS is held invalid or unenforceable, that portion shall be construed in a manner consistent with applicable law to reflect, as nearly as possible, the original intentions of the parties, and the remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect. The failure of Apple to exercise or enforce any right or provision of these TOS shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. You agree that, except as otherwise expressly provided in these TOS, there shall be no third-party beneficiaries to this agreement. Any translation of these TOS is done for local requirements and in the event of a dispute between the English and any non-English versions, the English version of these TOS shall govern. You agree that any claim or cause of action arising out of or related to these TOS or the use of the Service must be filed within one (1) year after the cause of action arose or be forever barred.
Last revised: November 6, 2008
© Copyright 2008 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.

Do the number of calls really matter? (4, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#26818955)

In the case of NFS for instance, hasn't there been a performance improvement? Isn't that the thing that matters?

Re:Do the number of calls really matter? (5, Informative)

epiphani (254981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819071)

Two things of note with NFS...

1. NFSv4 support was added. v4 is complex and has a lot of authentication stuff in it that wasn't in v3.

2. SunRPC is "part" of the NFS tree, but is effectively just a transport layer. It is completely abstracted, hence the numbers of symbols. It could be used for other stuff, so it pushes up that number too.

Re:Do the number of calls really matter? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819229)

Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with, especially not when they already have a Windows machine that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.

Re:Do the number of calls really matter? (0, Offtopic)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819855)

The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.

I know feeding Trolls is bad form, but:
What about a level 3 Wwwyzzard d dot com providing your BBS connection? Last time I _had_ to compile something was almost a decade ago.

Re:Do the number of calls really matter? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26820909)

Hi. I'm the infamous Anonymous Coward, and it's time we had a talk.

For years now, I've been enhancing the discussion on Slashdot through interesting interjections and humorous anecdotes (often about homosexual African Americans), but I feel things just aren't working out.

It takes me an awful lot of time, researching composing and spell chekcing the many hundreds of valuable posts I make a day, and although I don't request anything in return all I ever see is abuse. You moderate my comments down for absolutely no good reason.

I've had enough.

From this point on I'm just not going to bother. It's over.

I've been feeling this way for a while, slowly I've put less and less effort in my posts, repeating the same ideas over and over and, now, even started repeating whole posts verbatim.

It's been fun, Slashdot, but I'm disillusioned. You broke my heart, and I am never doing to give you the benefit of my insight again.

Be happy.
Love and regrets,
Anon.

Re:Do the number of calls really matter? (1, Offtopic)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 5 years ago | (#26821003)

Truely a Slashdot icon. You will be missed.

Re:Do the number of calls really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26821237)

I really mean it.

Goodbye (for real).

Anon.

Yes/no (3, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819129)

The number of calls in the interface do matter because they increase complexity. This makes fs maintainability and development a bit harder from version to version as it gets less clear what each call should do. Many of the calls are optional, or can be performed by defaults, which does help to simplify things.

There is little calling overhead from using multiple calls. Of course these interface changes are all done for a good reason: performance, stability, security.

Re:Yes/no (2, Insightful)

shish (588640) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819357)

The number of calls in the interface do matter because they increase complexity

Replacing 100 lines of in-driver code to one function call from a shared library?

Re:Yes/no (4, Insightful)

Suzuran (163234) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819653)

Function calls are not free. Especially in kernel space. Everything costs time. You need to do the most you can with the least instructions. 100 lines of inline code will probably run faster than a function call.

Re:Yes/no (4, Informative)

ckaminski (82854) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820291)

Okay, you MIGHT, just MIGHT have a point with a microkernel architecture, or if the filesystems are implemented in user space (Fuse), but is irrelevant in kernel modules in Linux - you're not crossing interrupt boundaries, so calling a kernel function is just as cost effective as rolling your own.

Re:Yes/no (1)

0xygen (595606) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820635)

Have a think about what keeping code very local may do for you, specifically, bear in mind the size of the cache lines and length of the pipeline in today's processors.

Re:Yes/no (4, Informative)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820779)

Function calls are not free. Especially in kernel space. Everything costs time. You need to do the most you can with the least instructions. 100 lines of inline code will probably run faster than a function call.

Never having been one to accept unsupported claims at face value, I just tested that assertion on a Pentim-M here, with a small C program that either calls a function to increment a counter, or directly increments the counter a number of times. I compiled with O0 to be sure gcc does not change around my code at all. Just the instructions, thanks. Funny thing? A hundred increments runs within 1% of the speed of 100 calls to a function to do the increment. And yes I unrolled those calls to isolate the cost of what I was measuring. So... rather surprisingly, the cost of these function calls is as close as doesn't matter, to exactly zero.

Loops on the other hand... cost a huge amount. I won't get into details. But Intel clearly does something to optimize function calls in microcode, or probably even hardware. Function calls just don't cost what you think they do. In many cases, the function call will cost less by not trashing as much of that incredibly valuable L1 instruction cache.

Re:Yes/no (2, Funny)

thc4k (951561) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820863)

If only compilers could read wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , then they knew that they could inline function calls.

Re:Yes/no (4, Interesting)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819599)

> The number of calls in the interface do matter because they increase complexity.

That is only true, if a similar functionality is provided and the function-calls are of similar complexity (e.g. number of parameters, complexity of arguments.

To my limited knowledge, over work has been done to extract more common functionality from file-systems. Should that be the the case, it would increase the number of function calls, but reduce the overall complexity.

Re:Yes/no (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820597)

To my limited knowledge, over work has been done to extract more common functionality from file-systems. Should that be the the case, it would increase the number of function calls, but reduce the overall complexity.

Or in other words, it's a bit dumb to take communication between modules as a measure of complexity, when modules are part of good non-monolithic design, which Linux has been deliberately moving towards for years.

Aren't 1% of the calls doing 99% of the work? (1)

wsanders (114993) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819733)

Or some such arbitrary statistic?

Re:Aren't 1% of the calls doing 99% of the work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26820507)

I really want my filesystem to do 100% of the work...

Re:Do the number of calls really matter? (5, Interesting)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819137)

Yes, that sounds like "slimming down" to me. At least, I can understand what teh article is trying to get at. It seems like we went through a period of early operating system development over the past few decades where the stress was on throwing everything in, including the kitchen sink. It's at least interesting that Linux distros are putting in some amount of effort into pulling excess functionality out of the default installation while computers continue to become bigger, faster, stronger.

And I think it is pointing at something similar to what is going on with OSX, and it is a trend. We've hit some kind of a milestone, I think, where most of our computer functionality is "good enough" for most of what we actually use them for. Something about the development of computer systems right now reminds me of... whenever it was... 10 years ago?... when people were using their computers mostly for word-processing, and their computers were good enough for that, so there wasn't a huge drive to accomplish a particular thing. Then people discovered that they could rip CDs into MP3s and share them, and there grew this whole new focus on multimedia and the Internet.

Now we have those things handled, and it seems like the answer to "what's next?" is making both hardware and software smaller and less bloated. We're getting smart phones that are becoming something more like a real portable computer, and we're getting things like netbooks. I predict you're also going to start seeing better use of embedded systems, like maybe DVRs are just going to be built into TVs soon. Not sure on that one, but I think you're going to see things shrinking, devices being consolidated, and a renewed focus on making things more efficient and refined.

Meh. It's rambling time...

=Smidge=

Re:Do the number of calls really matter? (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819265)

Ever since.... well, the first abstraction there's been a holy flamewar of abstractions versus spaghetti code. The one side of the war claims that by building enough layers each layer is simple, well-understood with well-defined interactions and thus fairly bugfree. The other side claims that abstractions wrap things in so many layers that the whole code is like an onion without substance, separating cause from effect so it's difficult to grasp and that these layers seriously hurt performance. The answer is usually to do is simple if possible, complex if necessary. Of calls went up and performance went up it's probably necessary, but isolated an increase in cross calls would be a bad thing.

Re:Do the number of calls really matter? (1)

stevied (169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819859)

The trick with adding abstractions is to document the model and the architecture. Great gobs of reference documentation are not necessarily required, but a short summary of the way the system (or rather, its creators) "sees the world", and what the major objects / classes are, can be disproportionately useful relative to its size. (In complex systems - like a kernel - some idea of how the execution flow works is also useful: which stuff is called in interrupt context, which from process context, etc.)

Re:Do the number of calls really matter? (2, Insightful)

esampson (223745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819795)

Each unique external call represents a piece of code that has to be present to make the module work. Assuming the average size of the code referenced by an external function call doesn't change more unique calls would mean the module would need more code to support it. At least I believe that's what the author's thinking is.

Of course that's a pretty big assumption. If you have more external calls because the code being called is leaner and only half the size on average then you could have a 50% increase in the number of function calls and still reduce footprint. Also if all of your calls go to modules that are highly utilized (i.e. most of the code in them is called) you could have a seriously reduced footprint over fewer external calls that are spread out among a large number of lightly utilized modules.

And all of this, of course, ignores the fact that if you are going to be using a version of the operating system for a device such as a cell phone you probably wouldn't chose one of the file systems like NFS but would go for one better suited to the small amount of memory available.

Re:Do the number of calls really matter? (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820123)

In the case of NFS for instance, hasn't there been a performance improvement? Isn't that the thing that matters?

I guess that depends on why you care. If you're lumping Linux into an end-user distro, then you probably think that's a good thing. If you're looking at long-term growth of complexity and thinking of that as a metric for maintainability... then it might be a bad sign.

Is this a story? (2, Insightful)

mlheur (212082) | more than 5 years ago | (#26818985)

The briefness of the article and lack of actual functional analysis make me think this should have been a comment on the original /. article rather than a whole new article of its own.

Slow news day?

Re:Is this a story? (4, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819335)

I don't like that it was restricted to just Linux FSes, comparing it against ones available for other OSes, would have given it at least some context. Based upon the article, it sounds like Linux is being trounced. But, one doesn't really know because there isn't a comparison to other OSes to have any clue whatsoever.

Goofy metric, too. (4, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820741)

Unless I've misread it, TFA's definition of "size" for a filesystem is "how many distinct external/kernel subroutines does it call?"

That seems to be a very strange metric. Seems to me that a well-designed filesystem will have little code and make extensive (re)use of well-defined services elsewhere (rather than reinventing those wheels). This "slims" the filesystem's own unique code down to its own core functionality.

Now maybe, if the functions are hooks in the OS for the filesystem, a larger number of them implies a poorer abstraction boundary. But it's not clear to me, absent more explanation, that this is what TFA is claiming.

At least Reiser (5, Funny)

Spamhead (462189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26818989)

got to make one call...

Re:At least Reiser (0, Redundant)

Irongeek_ADC (903018) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819101)

Ah, yes. Reiser, It's a killer filesystem.

Re:At least Reiser (-1, Redundant)

epiphani (254981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819177)

MurderFS

Re:At least Reiser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819593)

Microsoft uses it as an example of how open source can kill someone.

Reiser Pieces it is nicknamed, because he hacked his wife to pieces, ReiserFS is nicknamed that now.

Re:At least Reiser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819195)

Look for a file named House.

Re:At least Reiser (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819447)

He claims he didn't do it, that it was the one armed man.

Re:At least Reiser (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819765)

He claims he didn't do it, that it was the one armed man.

I thought it was a one ARM processor

Re:At least Reiser (4, Funny)

oboreruhito (925965) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819893)

I doubt it. Too RISCy.

Re:At least Reiser (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819365)

Hans has said he plans on releasing a new book later this year:

The Shredded State of Linux Filesystem Programmers' Anuses

Re:At least Reiser (5, Informative)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820195)

Off topic, but just in case anyone is curious as to how Hans Reiser is doing in prison...

Not particularly well so far: http://www.kcbs.com/pages/3634907.php [kcbs.com] ?

The hairy state of Linux users (-1, Troll)

77Punker (673758) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819017)

Perhaps the users are getting slimmer, but neckbeards are prevalent as ever!

Re:The hairy state of Linux users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819127)

I've never seen a slim neckbeard

What? (5, Interesting)

svnt (697929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819047)

While OSes may be "sliming down" as the article says, what does the removal of standard db packages from Ubuntu have to do with filesystem-related kernel calls?

The article doesn't seem to mention the possiblity that more functionality may be pushed into the kernel from userspace, which might make sense in other situations, but I don't think that argument would hold up here.

I am struggling to make the connection between the summary and the so-called article. The fact that they are not stripping/locking fs functionality means that OSes aren't shrinking? That's the hypothesis?

Re:What? (1)

wgaryhas (872268) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819341)

One article is claiming that the OS is slimming down based on the removal of some previously bundled applications. Another article is claiming that the OS is not slimming down because the kernel is getting more complex. It all boils down to whether you consider bundled applications are considered part of the OS or not.

Re:What? (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820071)

Yes they do. It is about the only thing RMS and BillG can agree on.

Where's NTFS ? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819087)

You are kidding arent you ?

        Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?

        That sounds preposterous to me.

        If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling computers without a windows. This clearly is not happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that windows is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the computer from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.

        Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Vista, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing OS/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.

        Its just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire computer fron start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of windows. Not possible.

        I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.

Re:Where's NTFS ? (5, Funny)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819371)

Dude Microsoft is giving up on NTFS for WinFS with Windows 7.0. Get your facts straight before you start to character assassinate an operating system. WinFS was to be a part of Vista, but Microsoft removed it before the retail version in order to meet deadlines.

Did you know that Linux has limited NTFS support? I usually have to create a FAT32 partition to copy files between Windows XP and Linux. NTFS is usually read only or not available. Pfffssssttt!

Just like wine, Microsoft will not release a finished product before its time.

Re:Where's NTFS ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819451)

*whoosh*

Re:Where's NTFS ? (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26821065)

*whoosh*

Re:Where's NTFS ? (5, Insightful)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819515)

Did you know that Linux has limited NTFS support? I usually have to create a FAT32 partition to copy files between Windows XP and Linux. NTFS is usually read only or not available.

Have you heard of NTFS-3G [ntfs-3g.org] ?

The NTFS-3G driver is a freely and commercially available and supported read/write NTFS driver for Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, NetBSD, Solaris, Haiku, and other operating systems. It provides safe and fast handling of the Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows 2000, Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 file systems.

Re:Where's NTFS ? (1)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 5 years ago | (#26821143)

Say, is the NTFS-3G support (or is it ntfsprogs?) good enough to create an NTFS partition that can be used to boot Windows?

Re:Where's NTFS ? (0)

darkwhite (139802) | more than 5 years ago | (#26821153)

NTFS-3G sucks really, really hard. I tried to use it to copy a bunch of files between partitions and it left the second partition in an unusable state (basically the files were insanely fragmented and both Linux and Windows would choke just trying to read the filesystem).

So maybe it's usable for editing small amounts of files, or files that already exist, but it is in no way a replacement for native or networked filesystems.

Re:Where's NTFS ? (5, Informative)

ADRA (37398) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819617)

1. The AC was a satire. In fact, I remember reading those exact lines at least once before. Its actually quite funny, so props to the original troll for making something really nice to read.

2. ntfs-3g should be all you need to handle read/writes in Linux these days. I think its nested on top of fuse, so you'll probably need it as well. (Side note, glad Linus finally caved on allowing fuse into his kernel releases)

3. WinFS is a meta-layer on top of NTFS, so not in itself a disk file-system.

Re:Where's NTFS ? (1)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819901)

First, it's an old troll copy&paste shit. Your /. ID is over twice as low as mine and you still haven't ever seen that crap?

Second,

> Microsoft is giving up on NTFS for WinFS with Windows 7.0.

This is simply not true. Not true on multiple levels. Windows 7 is NOT NT 7.0, it's still NT 6.x, the "7" is just marketing. Second, the "FS" in WinFS doesn't stand for "file system" but "future storage" -- think of WinFS as a sort of database where users can store "objects" like videos, songs, documents, and tag them, rate them, quickly search them, etc. NTFS is still there and is doing its job. Uh, and WinFS is vaporware.

> Get your facts straight

Irony, isn't it.

Re:Where's NTFS ? (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820095)

WinFS was going to be part of Windows NT 4, back in 1996.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:Where's NTFS ? (1)

ckaminski (82854) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820409)

Did you know that WinFS was SUPPOSED to be in Windows 2000?

Re:Where's NTFS ? (1)

jerep (794296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819407)

Are you saying that this Windows can run on a computer without linux underneath it, at all ?

There, fixed that for you, I'll leave the rest up for you to research.

Too bad I don't have any mod points left, you deserve a +5 funny.

Re:Where's NTFS ? (0)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819439)

Would you have also modded the other copy and paste jobs funny?

Re:Where's NTFS ? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819671)

If they were funny, I don't see why not. Same for informative, interesting, or other mods. Just because it's a cut/paste doesn't make it any less pertinent.

Re:Where's NTFS ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819411)

Hey Darl, nice to see you're still around after the collapse of the SCO lawsuit. :)

Re:Where's NTFS ? (1)

Godji (957148) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819455)

That one's getting old, I've spent too much time on Slashdot, or both.

Re:Where's NTFS ? (4, Funny)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819481)

In Linux, the open office might be the default for editing your wordfiles, and you might prefer ubuntu brown over the grassy knoll of the windows desktop, but mark my words young man - without the windows drivers sitting below the visible surface, allowing the linus to talk to the hardware, it is without worth.

And so, by choosing your linux as an alternative to windows on the desktop, you still need a windows licence to run this operating system through the windows drivers to talk to the hardware. Linux is only a code, it cannot perform the low level function.

My point being, young man, that unless you intend to pirate and steal the Windows drivers and services, how is using the linux going to save money ? Well ? It seems that no linux fan can ever provide a straight answer to that question !

May as well just stay legal, run the Windows drivers, and run Office on the desktop instead of the linus.

Re:Where's NTFS ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819753)

if never seen linus run on my computer!
even though im greatful for linux and stuff i'd still beat the crap out of him for stepping on my computer!

Re:Where's NTFS ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26820237)

Wow you sound like every libertarian slashbot ranting about how "the gubbermint" and the federal reserve are conspiring to make freedom illegal and sell our sovereignty to the UN. Well done.

captcha: defraud

Re:Where's NTFS ? (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819551)

Sometimes I wish there was a way to make my own meta-mod, like "don't include mods from the people that modded this up ever again". The same copy-paste has been in tons of stories now, and it's not funny anymore because it's the EXACT same thing. I'd even rather hear one more variation on our insensitive clod overlords from Soviet Russia.

Okay... (1, Redundant)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819687)

I'd even rather hear one more variation on our insensitive clod overlords from Soviet Russia.

In Soviet Russia, insensitive overlords run Linux without windows on YOU!!

Re:Where's NTFS ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819699)

A happy side effect of the funny mod is that it does not add karma while all the negative mods do reduce karma. If you're tired of the soviet jokes then mod them down -- that'll give the poster a karma hit he probably won't get back. It may take a while but all the soviet pranksters will eventually get the point that posting one will cause a karma hit

Re:Where's NTFS ? (1)

barncha (1432683) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819787)

In Soviet Russia, insensitive clod overlords copy-paste YOU!

Re:Where's NTFS ? (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820401)

You've go my vote for this! This stuff starts to really get on my nerves.

Original reference for this post ? (2, Informative)

DrYak (748999) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820119)

Sorry to disrupt the trolling copy-pasta, but :
Is this post on ZDNet's forum [zdnet.com] the original form of this troll ?
Or is this troll older, and jerryleecooper was already copying it from somewhere else ?

I'm just curious to know where this fine piece of humorous trolling was originally born.

Re:Original reference for this post ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26820999)

Yessir, ZDNet is the origin.

P.S., my captcha is "trolley" :)

Re:Original reference for this post ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26821215)

If it's getting a bit long in the tooth and needs replacing, I'd suggest something more recent like

At this point, I am not sure what you are doing is legal. No software is free and spreading that misconception is harmful.

Children look up to adults for guidance and discipline. I will research this as time allows and I want to assure you, if you are doing anything illegal, I will pursue charges as the law allows. I along with many others tried Linux during college and I assure you, the claims you make are grossly over-stated and hinge on falsehoods. I admire your attempts in getting computers in the hands of disadvantaged people but putting linux on these machines is holding our kids back.

This is a world where Windows runs on virtually every computer, and putting on a carnival show for an operating system is not helping these children at all.

Re:Where's NTFS ? (1)

ckaminski (82854) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820391)

OS/2 lost the war because of the price of memory in 1993-1995 timeframe. It would have replaced Windows entirely if it could have run in 4MB of RAM.

Re:Where's NTFS ? I LOL'ed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26820435)

LOLOLOLOL good one, had me going for a minute

Re:Where's NTFS ? (1)

TheDauthi (219285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820533)

It's only possible because these "Linux" guys took a lot of the code they're using from an existing company named SCO.

Thoughts (4, Informative)

stevied (169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819089)

Thoughts:

- This is measuring, I believe, calls to different functions; a call to one function from multiple places is only counted once. So it's really a measure of the diversity of external calls.

- Size and complexity aren't necessarily the same thing. It's actually possible that as common functionality is abstracted out of filesystems, they get smaller but make more external calls. There was a point a few years ago when this was happening at quite a rapid pace in the fs code, I don't know if it is still true.

- Journalled filesystems and networked filesystems are pretty complex creatures by their nature, the quoted numbers don't seem unreasonable. NFS in particular implements (IIRC) protocol versions 2, 3 and 4, and 4 had a lot of new stuff.

Re:Thoughts (4, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819583)

In fact, if you think about it, the greater the number of different functions a filesystem driver uses, the less functionality it needs to have within itself. I also don't think the number of external calls is a significant measure of anything related to the size or performance, really. It all depends on what calls are being made and for what purpose.

If anything, as you imply, it's a measure of complexity. But even that might not really be the case if you stop and think about it. As more stuff is abstracted out, the less code goes into the filesystem code, the simpler, really, not more complex that filesystem driver becomes.

I think this was a really poor choice of metric and that almost renders this entire article moot.

Re:Thoughts (2, Informative)

stevied (169) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819777)

Yeah. There was a stage (starting in the 2.3 days, I think) where the kernel gradually grew a very complete "framework" which the filesystems just plugged into, basically filling in the gaps. Straightforward, unixy filesystems became ridiculously simple to implement, and even the more complex ones got a lot of non-essential complexity combed out. Of course, there were a fair few specialized callbacks and utility functions made available to the fs code as part of this, and that may have pushed the unique call count up.

not following (5, Insightful)

Eil (82413) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819143)

What's your argument here? That filesystem code in the kernel shouldn't be growing more sophisticated over time?

This rings of the armchair-pundit argument that the kernel is getting more and more "bloated" and a breath later crying out that there still aren't Linux hardware drivers for every computing device ever made.

Re:not following (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819499)

I have a good idea to get the drivers while still eliminating the bloat.

Have an option to compile the kernel during installation, based on detected devices.

Re:not following (4, Insightful)

doshell (757915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819971)

I have a good idea to get the drivers while still eliminating the bloat.

Have an option to compile the kernel during installation, based on detected devices.

And then whenever you buy a new webcam, replace your graphics card, or whatever, the kernel must be recompiled. People will love that.

Also: the Linux kernel is modular. This means you don't actually hold in memory, at every time, the drivers to all the hardware devices known to man. Only those your machine actually needs to run. The remaining are just files sitting on your hard disk, ready to be loaded should the need arise. This is an adequate way to keep down the bloat while not inconveniencing the user every time a new piece of hardware pops up.

Re:not following (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820289)

Remember this the next time you see an apoplectic rant against "big government"

The state (5, Funny)

hkb (777908) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819155)

The state of Linux filesystems may be in disarray, but it's nothing to kill your wife over...

*rimshot*

What does this even mean? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819167)

Not being a filesystem/db geek, I honestly can't tell if "speed of growth" refers to "how frequently it's updated" or to "how rapidly it allocates space to store things". And I don't understand what the number of external calls means at ALL. Is that a bad thing? A good thing? Why? Can someone please provide some context? This doesn't have any at all!

Re:What does this even mean? (2, Informative)

svnt (697929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819349)

Unfortunately all "speed of growth" is referring to is the rate of increase of the number of filesystem kernel calls of a particular filesystem from version 2.6.11 to 2.6.28 of the Linux kernel.

Nothing to do with any sort of performance metric.

wrong data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26819239)

as so often with linux stuff can be configured, when the kernel is compiled you can disable lots of stuff the filesystems use (acl, security hooks, etc etc). Bet with that stuff disabled the chart looks way better

Re:wrong data (2, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820185)

Nevermind COMPILING stuff. You can just plain choose not to USE stuff.

Don't want the "bloat" of NFS or ext4, then don't bloody use them.

Yeah, the spiffy new things or inherently complex things might
show that complexity in the code. Imagine that. The source for
Halo looks bigger than the source for Pacman.

There is no news here.

As an nvidia user, ATI can make their Linux drivers as bad and
as bloated as they want. I don't care. It really doesn't effect
me.

Operating System Bloat (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819421)

Microsoft has been known to use FAT file systems, FAT16, VFAT, FAT32, with NTFS I was able to allow my Windows to go on a diet. :)

No really we don't need extra features for an operating system, make them optional and don't load them up at default. Maybe make most things a kernel module that only loads when it is used.

Bloating the Operating System with uneeded features is just plain stupid. Windows 2000/XP is most anyone needs for Windows, everything else is just Fat on the operating system and slows it down with bloated features most people don't need.

Re:Operating System Bloat (2)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820859)

I'll thank you not to tell me what I need in the future, no matter how amazingly insightful you find your own opinion on the matter.

File systems? We can have as many as possible... (-1, Offtopic)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819477)

...Let there be as many filesystems as can be because the availability of so many does not seem to affect interoperability. If we in the Linux world can resolve issues surrounding the location of files, naming schemes, versions, we could solve a ton of trouble for potential Linux converts.

There is no worse problem than being faced with an error like:

"...Installation of cannot continue...lib_XYZ_0.o not found..."

Joe Public then fires up "apt-get install..." a package that contains lib_XYZ_0.o.

He is informed that he needs a newer version...

On getting the newer version he is informed that installation of that package will break dependencies...

He removes the "offending software" then on trying again with the newer version, he's informed that lib_XYZ_0.o is already installed! Amazing isn't it?

What suprises me is that programmers who can create software that scares Microsoft with its money and resourses also adopts policies that do not do much for it in terms of penetration.

Joe Puiblic then forces the installation with a switch to appt-get...Then on trying to boot into the GUI, he's thrown back to the command line.

Conclusion by Joe Public: Linux suck big time. The trouble is, this Joe might be a major decision maker in a few years!

Am I far from what happens in the Linux world more often than not?

Re:File systems? We can have as many as possible.. (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819683)

What you described sounds like upgrading to an alpha version of Ubuntu, with 3rd party packages.

I have not seen conflicts like that when using official distros (of any type) though.

Re:File systems? We can have as many as possible.. (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819817)

The trouble is packages are advertised as Linux packages. Now, Joe Public knows he has Linux in Ubuntu (and he's right), so he goes ahead to install the package. Why? Because Ubuntu does not have the package he's trying to install. He then runs into all sorts of trouble. Right?

Re:File systems? We can have as many as possible.. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820221)

Perhaps you can provide a real world example of this since the rest of us
seem to be baffled by the idea, having never actually experienced it ourselves.

Re:File systems? We can have as many as possible.. (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819831)

never happened to me.

BTW, what's the point ? and how is it related to the growth of operating systems ?

Check out Tux3 (4, Informative)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819495)

While Tux3 [tux3.org] is not yet ready to run on your desktop, and won't be for a good many months, it is relatively trim at around 6K lines, and is expected to be somewhere around 10K complete with versioning, recovery and proper code comments. Of course, that will still be significant growth in a few months, and nothing says it won't just keep growing. But Tux3 is starting much smaller than its peers, and already has a pretty good range of "big filesystem" features. One of our guiding principles is to keep it tight, therefore leaving fewer places for bugs to hide.

Re:Check out Tux3 (3, Funny)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820693)

But Tux3 is starting much smaller than its peers, and already has a pretty good range of "big filesystem" features.

Let us count the number of fast, slim projects have been sucked down this way...

Programmer: "This shit is bloated. I'm starting a new project that will be slim and fast"
<type type type>
<build build make>
User 1: "This is really nice and fast, but I need feature X"
<add add add>
Users 2 & 3: "I'd use it, but I really love $OTHER_PROGRAM's Y"
Programmer: "Grrr..."
<add add add>
User 4: "I've heard that Z is doing $SPIFFY, why doesn't this do that?"
<type type add add add add build>
User 5: "This is all big and slow and bloated... I'm going with N instead..."
Programmer: "Fuck you! Fuck you all motherfuckers!"

Not to say that Tux3 will go or is going this way. Indeed, as long as people stick around who remember the guiding principle of keeping it small it shouldn't. Best of luck!

/ext2fs fanatic
//I can shredses the files... yes I can, and I know it will workses...

"Size" and "simple" is not so easily measured. (2, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819723)

The author of the article takes the position that filesystem external calls == "operating system size", and then proceeds to start measuring his new definition.

What he never mentioned or even tries to justify was his metric. Why does more external calls (or as someone more accurately pointed out, diversity of external calls) equate to "operating system size"? Why does this equate to an even more abstract concept of "simple"?

I don't see any reason to equate these measurements to such conclusions. "size" and "simple" are abstract concepts that involve a lot more than a simple count of external references.

Re:"Size" and "simple" is not so easily measured. (0, Flamebait)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820675)

""Size" and "simple" is not so easily measured."

Says the retard with the tiny dick.

Bloat? I didn't see anything about that! (2, Insightful)

morgauo (1303341) | more than 5 years ago | (#26819863)

I didn't see anything in the article where the author made a value statement, that it is bad (or good) that system calls are increasing. He was just pointing out that the trend is not towards simplicity in this area.

I would also point out, that ext4 is very new and ntfs may not be new but never has been quite completed so active feature development could explain away the upward curves in their call counts, though not the absolute values.

Remember: filesystems are optionnal (2, Interesting)

renoX (11677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820087)

I think that you can compile only the filesystem you want in the kernel..
So the only complexity which matter to an user is the one of the filesystem they select to compile in the kernel!

Reiserlazer (2, Funny)

Teisei (1172661) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820427)

Imma firin' mah Reiser!

Bring back Reiser! (1)

EddyPearson (901263) | more than 5 years ago | (#26820623)

We need that Reiser fella on this pronto.

So what if he killed his wife, he still makes a damn fine filesystem. Reiserfs 3 was a good bit of kit.

I'd imagine he has time on his hands at the moment, does anybody know if he's expressed an interest in/allowed to continue development of Reiserfs 4?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?