3 ms·

> Also I demonstrated that FreeBSD + ZFS behaves the same as Linux on my system. No, you didn't. You attempted that, but you failed miserably by not including

by dozzie 9y ago

> Also I demonstrated that FreeBSD + ZFS behaves the same as Linux on my system. No, you didn't. You attempted that, but you failed miserably by not including the most important piece of information: primary group of your shell. > Perhaps you were using UFS instead of ZFS? Or non-default file system mount options / or other tweaks? No, it was ZFS, as I stated clearly elsewhere. No options from me whatsoever. Now try the experiment with creating files again, but this time check your process' EGID. It may turn out that your interpretation of your own output was wrong. > I'll I'm saying is that I don't agree with you that this behavior is OS-specific because the behavior is defined by the file system. Being defined by a filesystem handling code and being the usual behaviour under particular OS are not the same thing. Your claim boils down to disagreeing that it's the most prevalent behaviour for the OS, and you justify your position with the behaviour being coded in particular place, no matter that most of the other places for a given OS work in the same way. This is silly stance. > I suggest you play around with a hobby file system yourself. And this exercise would give me what, assuming that I haven't implemented a filesystem already?

laumars 9y ago
> No, you didn't. You attempted that, but you failed miserably by not including the most important piece of information: primary group of your shell. I did check that but must have missed it off the post. Sorry about that. > Being defined by a filesystem handling code and being the usual behaviour under particular OS are not the same thing. That was my whole bloody point! Glad you finally agree with me. It's the file systems that define that behavior so it's file system-specific not OS-specific (nor Linux-specific) like you previously claimed. > Your claim boils down to disagreeing that it's the most prevalent behaviour for the OS, and you justify your position with the behaviour being coded in particular place, no matter that most of the other places for a given OS work in the same way. This is silly stance. No, my point was that it's a file system-specific behavior not an OS-specific behavior. A point you then tried to pass off as your own (above) despite me categorically stating - numerous times throughout the discourse - exactly what my position is. Honestly I think this argument for you is less about facts and more about gradually moving the goal posts so you don't appear wrong. > And this exercise would give me what A greater understanding of a topic you've been happy to engage in arguments about yet reluctant to listen to other peoples feedback on. You're clearly an intelligent guy so if you're not going to take the experience of your peers into account (and I cannot blame you for wanting to trust your own experiences) then why not research this topic properly instead? > assuming that I haven't implemented a filesystem already? It's a bit late in the discussion to be playing the bluff card. :P
- dozzie 9y ago
  Dude, my whole point revolves around the fact that the most prevalent behaviour for a given OS is OS-specific, which is a fucking tautology. What kind of feedback you expect me to accept from somebody who tries to make me believe the tautology is false? Not to mention that the somebody tries to imply that I don't have enough knowledge about topic I'm quite sure I have, without ever pointing any error on my side, beside the tautology thing above.

by dozzie 9y ago

laumars 9y ago

> No, you didn't. You attempted that, but you failed miserably by not including the most important piece of information: primary group of your shell. I did check that but must have missed it off the post. Sorry about that. > Being defined by a filesystem handling code and being the usual behaviour under particular OS are not the same thing. That was my whole bloody point! Glad you finally agree with me. It's the file systems that define that behavior so it's file system-specific not OS-specific (nor Linux-specific) like you previously claimed. > Your claim boils down to disagreeing that it's the most prevalent behaviour for the OS, and you justify your position with the behaviour being coded in particular place, no matter that most of the other places for a given OS work in the same way. This is silly stance. No, my point was that it's a file system-specific behavior not an OS-specific behavior. A point you then tried to pass off as your own (above) despite me categorically stating - numerous times throughout the discourse - exactly what my position is. Honestly I think this argument for you is less about facts and more about gradually moving the goal posts so you don't appear wrong. > And this exercise would give me what A greater understanding of a topic you've been happy to engage in arguments about yet reluctant to listen to other peoples feedback on. You're clearly an intelligent guy so if you're not going to take the experience of your peers into account (and I cannot blame you for wanting to trust your own experiences) then why not research this topic properly instead? > assuming that I haven't implemented a filesystem already? It's a bit late in the discussion to be playing the bluff card. :P

dozzie 9y ago
Dude, my whole point revolves around the fact that the most prevalent behaviour for a given OS is OS-specific, which is a fucking tautology. What kind of feedback you expect me to accept from somebody who tries to make me believe the tautology is false? Not to mention that the somebody tries to imply that I don't have enough knowledge about topic I'm quite sure I have, without ever pointing any error on my side, beside the tautology thing above.