question about ext 2/ ext 4, etc..

[pdlethbridge]

Why is there a difference and less problems when I download and install to ext 4 rather than ext 2?
Using ext 2 has been my normal since the 6.04, 6.10 days. But on this release it was a nightmare to install unless I used ext 4. Why is that?

[pdlethbridge]

bump

[jlaki]

Why are you avoiding ext4?

[uRock]

EXT4 is the default because it has more capabilities.

[pdlethbridge]

capabilities of what? I thought they were only different places to put things. How are they different?

[Drenriza]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4

The big difference for me (and the reason i use ext4 and not reiserFS) is that ext4 now has the ability of journaling. Something that in the beginning was not native to the Ext filesystem.

[pdlethbridge]

Ah, now I see, thanks. Now explain Unix Millennium Bug, Y2K38 in 50 words or less.:):):):):)

[Drenriza]

Unix 2038

As with all Unix and Unix-like operating systems, time and dates in FreeBSD are represented internally as the number of seconds since the 1st of January 1970 (the Unix "epoch"). Currently, that figure is stored as a 32 bit integer, and will run out part way through 2038. By then we should (hopefully) be using a counter of 64 bits (or greater) which should be good until the end of the universe.
http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r19717856-Unix-Millennium-bug-in-2038

Meaning that half way through 2038 the 32bit lenght will not be sufficient to store the time and dates in FreeBSD, in seconds from 1970 to 2038. And a new bit lenght will be needed to continue the counting.

[pdlethbridge]

Hey, I said 50 words or less. Also in binary, thats the day they all change to 1's.

[John Bean]

Using ext 2 has been my normal since the 6.04, 6.10 days.

6.04? Don't remember that one. Was it Breezy Drake or Dapper Badger? :-)

[pdlethbridge]

no, I think it was breezy dapper:p:p:p

[uRock]

01110101 00111001 11110101 01001111 11010010 00010001 11111101 01011001 01011101 01111001 10101010

[pdlethbridge]

looks like the ones won.

[pdlethbridge]

from what I read, the extensions are like the windows file systems, fat, fat32, ntfs. would I be right?

[dabl]

Ah, now I see, thanks. Now explain Unix Millennium Bug, Y2K38 in 50 words or less.:):):):):)

"Y2K, but 38 years later" :lolflag:


Here's lots about Linux (and other) filesystems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems

[John Bean]

from what I read, the extensions are like the windows file systems, fat, fat32, ntfs. would I be right?

NTFS has absolutely no connection with FAT, and in particular is not some sort of extension of it; in fact it's not a FAT ("File Allocation Table") based file system of any sort.