Re: Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time

From: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>
To: Yaroslav Rastrigin <yarick@it-territory.ru>
Cc: Alistair John Strachan <s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk>,
	andersen@codepoet.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why the DOS has many ntfs read and write driver,but the linux can't for a long time
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:36:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1136813783.8412.4.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200601091403.46304.yarick@it-territory.ru>

On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 14:03 +0300, Yaroslav Rastrigin wrote:
> Hi, 
> > > > money to the right people.
> > >
> > > Could or would you be so kind to provide at least moderately complete
> > > pricelist ? Whom and how much should I pay to have correct support for
> > > intel graphics chipset, 2200BG Wi-Fi, complete
> > > suspend-to-disk/suspend-to-ram and to get an overall performance boost ?
> > 
> > Since these are all supported in 2.6.15, $0 would be my quote.
> I've mentioned _correct_ support. Contrary to current rather sad state of things. 
> 855GM still has no support for non-VESA videomodes (1280x800 can be enabled only via VBIOS hacks, and is not always properly restored on resume) 
> (and don't supported with intelfb) (which, AFAIK, has no support for dualhead)
> 2200BG sometimes starts to unacceptably lag and drop packets after going out of suspend (either STR or STD) and until reboot.
> (And this is driver issue)
> Suspend to ram works, more or less, but drains power like hungry cat drinks milk, and I just can't leave my laptop in STR for more than two days 
> 
> without worrying about my on-the-road availability. 
> Suspend to disk has nasty tendency to ruin my whole hot live X session, since X can't properly restore VT on resume.
> Overall performance isn't that bad, either, but I just can't understand, why KATE (Kde more or less advanced editor) takes twice as long to start 
> as UltraEdit in _emulated_ (VMWare) Windows XP running on this same box.
i can not take this seriously.. on both my laptop and workstation, the
kate window is up in less than a second after i either run kate from a
terminal, or select it in the kde menu..

unless ofcourse you are not using kde, and kate is the first kde
application you start, then it will need to load much more than simply
kate, at which point you cant really say what you are doing, since it
would be somewhat like comparing half of windows's startup time +
ultraedit startup time to kate startup time...

> 
> So, the question remains the same - whom and how much I need to pay to solve abovementioned problems ?
> 