BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000 comparison

Subject: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000 comparison
From: gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 07:57:31 -0400
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 17 Aug 2002 01:31:43 EDT." <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208170119130.6855-100000@kramer.thekramers.net>

Nearly every commercial Unix vendor has abandoned UFS as the default file 
system of choice. Tru64 uses ADVFS, HP-UX uses LVM based on Veritas' vfs. 
IBM, of course JFS. I don't know what Sun is using as the default for their 
servers.
David Kramer wrote:

> UFS happens to be very good, but yes, Linux has journalling file systems 
> too.  And they are right to not have them as the default; even for 
> business use they're not always the right choice.
-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9

Follow-Ups:
- FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000 comparison
  - From: lists at prwdot.org (Peter R. Wood)
- FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000 comparison
  - From: warlord at MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins)

References:
- FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000 comparison
  - From: david at thekramers.net (David Kramer)

Prev by Date: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000 comparison
Next by Date: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000 comparison
Previous by thread: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000 comparison
Next by thread: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000 comparison
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread


BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org