# WARNING! WARNING! High attack BLOGGER to BSD community



## Mustela (Sep 27, 2013)

First, sorry for my english. I'm spanish.

Just 4 days before, I wrote to blog [ troll link removed ], because many things are not true. This person hates BSD for some reason.

In reference to his text:

--------
_Linux on the other hand uses ext3 and lately, ext4. The ext file system has earned a reputation of being extremely fast, robust and fault tolerant. ext4 inductions, journaling reinforced with soft updates which has saved countless numbers amounts of data that would have been lost due to crashes, power outage and catastrophic hardware failure. UFS2 has also introduced journaling and soft updates copied from ext4. BSD advocates say that the journaling system they have is light weight and reliable but test have shown that it only successful saves data once every 15 crashes on average.

Speed

Numerous amounts of test by phoronix have shown that BSD is not just slower than GNU/Linux but in fact the BSD that claims to concentrate on performance, FreeBSD, is significantly slower than Solaris (which is itself one of the slowest OSes), Windows and Mac OS X. Future versions of FreeBSD will be even slower as they will be compiled with the ineffective Apple Clang compiler rather than the high performance and capable GCC._

--------

*MY ORIGINAL POSTED MESSAGE WAS THE FOLLOWING:*

Toni B. says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 23, 2013 at 11:11 am

Wait, what are copied from ext4 to UFS??

Journaling for UFS exist from 1998 (on Solaris), year that only work the ext2 on Linux and ReiserFS, announcing the thinking on ext3 with journalling (stable on 2001). BSD FFS incorporates Soft Updates on FreeBSD 5 (stable, 2005), but the technique exist on FFS from 4.4BSD (1999). When appears ext4 developement? On 2006. The ext4 stable version appears on end of 2008.

More, ext2 (Linux extended partition "rewrited" from 0) is inspired from UFS, ext3 is relatively exactly to ext2, with journaling like UFS and little more things, and ext4 is derived from ext3 + UFS Soft Updates strategy. True, only on FreeBSD 9.0 or + (Jan/2012, very late) be activate SU+Journaling for improve speed on system crashes. FreeBSD 7.0 (Feb/2008) includes a journal too, but with GEOM subsystem.

And one more, as you say, the performance for my Phenom II x6 is greater with FreeBSD than any version of GNU/Linux (2D and 3D), including Gentoo. I can compile with clang 3.3, GCC 4.7, 4.8, etc. Clang is open source like GCC, with his pro's and con's, like all, and what's problem if that's developed principally from Apple (I don't have anything from them).

But now, the major lack for BSD is the license. Though it has fewer restrictions, it needs a retouch. If they does it, BSD win a lot. Here, BSD loses because the people prefers GPL. Then, some tools for Linux do not exist on BSD, and some kernel tools and network monitoring is "complicated" and out of dated on BSD.

---------------------------

Letter by letter.

And *TODAY 27/09/2013, the blogger POST in my name:*

Toni B. says:	
September 23, 2013 at 11:11 am	

Ripped off so many things from ext4 to UFS??

Journaling for UFS exist only in 2012 (on Solaris), year that only work the ext2 on Linux and ReiserFS, announcing the thinking on ext3 with journalling (stable on 2001). BSD FFS incorporates Soft Updates on FreeBSD 9 (stable, 2011), but the technique exist on ext4 on Linux (2005).

More, ext2 (Linux extended partition â€œrewritedâ€ from 0) inspired UFS to steal, ext3 is relatively exactly to ext2, with journaling and much more things, and ext4 is derived from ext3. UFS copied ext4. True, only on FreeBSD 9.0 or + (Jan/2012, very late) be activate SU+Journaling for improve speed on system crashes (which happen once a day). FreeBSD 7.0 (Feb/2008) includes a journal too, but resulted in crappy system.

And one more, The performance for my Phenom II x68 is greater with GNU/Linux than any version of shit*BSD (2D and 3D), including FreeBSD. I can compile with GCC 4.7, 4.8, etc. Clang is proprietary, thatâ€™s a problem because thatâ€™s developed principally from Apple (I donâ€™t like anything from them).

The major lack for BSD is the license. Though it has fewer restrictions, it needs a retouch. If they does it, BSD win a lot. Here, BSD loses because the people prefers GPL. Then, some tools for Linux do not exist on BSD, and some kernel tools and network monitoring is â€œcomplicatedâ€ and out of dated on BSD.

--------------------------

I have the cached page on Firefox untouched, whit the awaiting moderation.

Ohh shiiitt!!! But what' shit is thisss??????

*It is necessary to do something, BUT NOW !!!*


----------



## kpedersen (Sep 27, 2013)

Don't waste your time. It hardly matters.


----------



## Mustela (Sep 27, 2013)

My privacy and manipulated messages? Yes, it worries me.


----------



## kpa (Sep 27, 2013)

We can do nothing about your manipulated messages, none really can. You took the chance with a known troll site and got pretty much what was expected.


----------



## SirDice (Sep 27, 2013)

Don't waste your time on obvious trolls.


----------



## Mustela (Sep 27, 2013)

You read this "replying to crytics" to this forum? [ troll link removed ]


----------



## kpedersen (Sep 27, 2013)

If I was smart enough, I would post a message on that site that on the surface looked like it agreed with the owner but actually had a special encoded message saying "FreeBSD rules, the owner of this page sux!"

Then again, if I was smart enough, I would probably be relaxing on a warm beach somewhere with lots of beer and girls rather than on this computer.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Sep 27, 2013)

And that's enough attention for the troll. Stop feeding. Closed.


----------

