Comments on: Linux sucks – Data Recovery / Dirty Filesystems http://www.ctho.org/blog/2008/10/linux-sucks-data-recovery-dirty-filesystems/ Just another WordPress weblog Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:28:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: John Clark http://www.ctho.org/blog/2008/10/linux-sucks-data-recovery-dirty-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-32280 John Clark Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:59:15 +0000 http://www.ctho.org/blog/?p=60#comment-32280 data recovery is a very costly option, always make a regular backups."., data recovery is a very costly option, always make a regular backups.”.,

]]> By: Barry Tiedemann http://www.ctho.org/blog/2008/10/linux-sucks-data-recovery-dirty-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-30282 Barry Tiedemann Wed, 12 May 2010 15:46:04 +0000 http://www.ctho.org/blog/?p=60#comment-30282 But the problem is that it's way too difficut for the average user - command line instructions are just too much for most folks. Still, really good post. But the problem is that it’s way too difficut for the average user – command line instructions are just too much for most folks. Still, really good post.

]]> By: add1kt http://www.ctho.org/blog/2008/10/linux-sucks-data-recovery-dirty-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-26619 add1kt Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:56:02 +0000 http://www.ctho.org/blog/?p=60#comment-26619 ha WHEN IT WORKS, but right now its usability and stability are roughly comparable to the initial run of Windows 95 well you're onto something but comparing say debian or ubuntu to that heap of crap. Are you serious? First, Do you remember how much windows 95 cost? What hardware it supported? Was it a multi-user system? Did it even come with a simple firewall installed? Was it plagues with the BSOD (refer back to the money question)? Talk to me about windows 95 security in regards to the internet. I see what you are trying to say but you still are well off the mark. I have had a clean install of debian (with no tweaking to get things working) running for weeks (with updates and new kernel drivers installed) without so much as a system reboot, let alone a lock up. Meanwhile I have been chugging along on the web, burning cd's, downloading giant files, backing up data and running various apps on windows via vmware on Destkop # 3 of my cube. I don't think 95 could touch any of that. But you are right. Linux in terms of utter refinement, 100% hardware compatibility and excellent 3rd party software support, is far behind M$'s latest and greatest rip off, the bug-free version of Vista aka 7 (plus a few nice features eg. Windows 'holy ripoff' PowerShell) for the ultimate low price of $150 ( don't worry they will upgrade in two years and make xp obsolete so prepare to shell out money if you haven't bought 7 yet). but i conclude with my thesis again, money and a monopoly will get you a near perfect system (speaking in generalities) and will undoubtedly make you look better than something put together on probably 1/1000th of the budget. But for what it's worth the latter system does what I need it to do, and I use windows for anything obscure. ha

WHEN IT WORKS, but right now its usability and stability are roughly comparable to the initial run of Windows 95

well you’re onto something but comparing say debian or ubuntu to that heap of crap. Are you serious? First, Do you remember how much windows 95 cost? What hardware it supported? Was it a multi-user system? Did it even come with a simple firewall installed? Was it plagues with the BSOD (refer back to the money question)? Talk to me about windows 95 security in regards to the internet.

I see what you are trying to say but you still are well off the mark. I have had a clean install of debian (with no tweaking to get things working) running for weeks (with updates and new kernel drivers installed) without so much as a system reboot, let alone a lock up. Meanwhile I have been chugging along on the web, burning cd’s, downloading giant files, backing up data and running various apps on windows via vmware on Destkop # 3 of my cube. I don’t think 95 could touch any of that. But you are right. Linux in terms of utter refinement, 100% hardware compatibility and excellent 3rd party software support, is far behind M$’s latest and greatest rip off, the bug-free version of Vista aka 7 (plus a few nice features eg. Windows ‘holy ripoff’ PowerShell) for the ultimate low price of $150 ( don’t worry they will upgrade in two years and make xp obsolete so prepare to shell out money if you haven’t bought 7 yet).

but i conclude with my thesis again, money and a monopoly will get you a near perfect system (speaking in generalities) and will undoubtedly make you look better than something put together on probably 1/1000th of the budget. But for what it’s worth the latter system does what I need it to do, and I use windows for anything obscure.

]]> By: Noreen http://www.ctho.org/blog/2008/10/linux-sucks-data-recovery-dirty-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-23136 Noreen Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:21:38 +0000 http://www.ctho.org/blog/?p=60#comment-23136 When I failed to access my files on llinus OS I tried Stella Phoenix Linux Data Recovery Software and it really solved all my problem. When I failed to access my files on llinus OS I tried Stella Phoenix Linux Data Recovery Software and it really solved all my problem.

]]> By: D http://www.ctho.org/blog/2008/10/linux-sucks-data-recovery-dirty-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-20411 D Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:43:12 +0000 http://www.ctho.org/blog/?p=60#comment-20411 I agree absolutely. I've been told repeatedly that Linux knows what to do with NTFS, along with everything else Linux supposedly does better. *YAWN*. Linux may be faster and more secure than Windows, WHEN IT WORKS, but right now its usability and stability are roughly comparable to the initial run of Windows 95. If it works for you, great. If not, whoops. It also doesn't help that members of the Linux community tout superior user-friendliness as a key selling point, then complain that "people just don't know enough about computers" when something goes wrong. If it were more user-friendly than Windows, then the typical Windows user should be able to do things in it at least AS easily, if not MORE easily, than he does in Windows. People who say that Linux is more user-friendly have a truly warped worldview. I agree absolutely. I’ve been told repeatedly that Linux knows what to do with NTFS, along with everything else Linux supposedly does better. *YAWN*.

Linux may be faster and more secure than Windows, WHEN IT WORKS, but right now its usability and stability are roughly comparable to the initial run of Windows 95. If it works for you, great. If not, whoops.

It also doesn’t help that members of the Linux community tout superior user-friendliness as a key selling point, then complain that “people just don’t know enough about computers” when something goes wrong. If it were more user-friendly than Windows, then the typical Windows user should be able to do things in it at least AS easily, if not MORE easily, than he does in Windows. People who say that Linux is more user-friendly have a truly warped worldview.

]]> By: Grey Hodge http://www.ctho.org/blog/2008/10/linux-sucks-data-recovery-dirty-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Grey Hodge Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:45:22 +0000 http://www.ctho.org/blog/?p=60#comment-14 Because Linux can read Windows originating file systems, and strives to be better. Yes, it IS like Ginger, and if you don't want to be compared, don't try it. Don't do something half assed and then whine that you're being called on doing it half assed. Do it right or don't do it at all. Because Linux can read Windows originating file systems, and strives to be better. Yes, it IS like Ginger, and if you don’t want to be compared, don’t try it. Don’t do something half assed and then whine that you’re being called on doing it half assed. Do it right or don’t do it at all.

]]> By: Richard Chapman http://www.ctho.org/blog/2008/10/linux-sucks-data-recovery-dirty-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Richard Chapman Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:03:21 +0000 http://www.ctho.org/blog/?p=60#comment-13 So why do you come to expect that Linux should be able to fix Windows problems while Windows knows nothing about Linux file systems? Is this something like Ginger Rogers who had to do everything Fred Astaire did only while dancing backwards, in high heels and wearing a floor length evening gown? The biggest problem with Linux is that it didn't come first. Please think long and hard before you respond to that statement. So why do you come to expect that Linux should be able to fix Windows problems while Windows knows nothing about Linux file systems? Is this something like Ginger Rogers who had to do everything Fred Astaire did only while dancing backwards, in high heels and wearing a floor length evening gown? The biggest problem with Linux is that it didn’t come first. Please think long and hard before you respond to that statement.

]]> By: CTho http://www.ctho.org/blog/2008/10/linux-sucks-data-recovery-dirty-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-12 CTho Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:16:15 +0000 http://www.ctho.org/blog/?p=60#comment-12 Richard: I'm not expecting it to fix the drive or work miracles. After getting the FS clean with a Windows box, the data is copying just fine. dmesg shows some errors and it's extraordinarily slow, but that's exactly what I was hoping for. I'm complaining primarily about the ridiculously bad usability here (incomprehensible dialogs with bad scary options, no GUI workaround, etc), and also about funcationality (i.e. the apparent lack of a fsck.ntfs). I would run into these problems with a functional-but-dirty drive too. Richard: I’m not expecting it to fix the drive or work miracles. After getting the FS clean with a Windows box, the data is copying just fine. dmesg shows some errors and it’s extraordinarily slow, but that’s exactly what I was hoping for.

I’m complaining primarily about the ridiculously bad usability here (incomprehensible dialogs with bad scary options, no GUI workaround, etc), and also about funcationality (i.e. the apparent lack of a fsck.ntfs). I would run into these problems with a functional-but-dirty drive too.

]]> By: Grey Hodge http://www.ctho.org/blog/2008/10/linux-sucks-data-recovery-dirty-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-11 Grey Hodge Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:12:03 +0000 http://www.ctho.org/blog/?p=60#comment-11 Oh, also, the fact that the other live distro can do it means Ubuntu should be able to as well, so your argument fails on both sides. Oh, also, the fact that the other live distro can do it means Ubuntu should be able to as well, so your argument fails on both sides.

]]> By: Grey Hodge http://www.ctho.org/blog/2008/10/linux-sucks-data-recovery-dirty-filesystems/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Grey Hodge Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:11:38 +0000 http://www.ctho.org/blog/?p=60#comment-10 Richard: Great, so, while under Windows, he could jsut copy the data, on Linux he has to download a special live CD, burn it, reboot to it, run that, then boot back to Linux and copy data. That sounds totally sane! Richard: Great, so, while under Windows, he could jsut copy the data, on Linux he has to download a special live CD, burn it, reboot to it, run that, then boot back to Linux and copy data. That sounds totally sane!

]]>