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

From: Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com>
To: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Yaroslav Rastrigin <yarick@it-territory.ru>,
	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>,
	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, 9 Jan 2006 17:34:38 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060109163437.GA67773@dspnet.fr.eu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1136823313.9957.37.camel@mindpipe>

On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:15:12AM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 16:07 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Currently Linux performance loading large binaries is at least
> > perceptually worse than Windows (some of that is perceptual tricks
> > windows apps pull, some of it real). 
> 
> Would you care to elaborate on this statement?  It's not clear to me how
> perception could differ from reality in this case.  If it seems faster
> doesn't that mean it is faster?

You can have a window opened without being ready to accept input yet
for instance.  XEmacs does that[1] when it opens its window before
parsing the user's configuration which can load a number of things and
hence take a while to run.  "Ok I'm going to open your application"
animations allow to win some perceptual time too.

Humans are fundamentally easy to fool for 1-2 seconds as long as they
have feedback.  Longer gets harder :-)

  OG.

[1] For technical reasons, not perceptual.