<story><title>The evolution of Unix facilities and architecture (2017)</title><url>https://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2017-May/011552.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>rwaksmunski</author><text>To this day I admire Linux for having the grit and perseverance of maintaining ext2, ext3 and ext4 as separate code bases for so long. Equivalent FreeBSD UFS, UFS with soft updates and UFS with journaling is one code base with each generation as a backward compatible feature. Given FreeBSD&amp;#x27;s negligible market share perhaps worse is indeed better.</text></comment>
<story><title>The evolution of Unix facilities and architecture (2017)</title><url>https://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2017-May/011552.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>userbinator</author><text>Ironically, I&amp;#x27;ve had far more problems with Linux systems using extfs losing data or requiring very lengthy fsck&amp;#x27;ing after hard resets than Windows 9x or even DOS on FAT, despite experiencing &lt;i&gt;more&lt;/i&gt; hard resets and routine hangs in my use of the latter.&lt;p&gt;I suspect the relatively more aggressive write caching of Linux and Unix-likes, combined with their more complex filesystem data structures, leads to a design in which unexpected resets easily cause lots of filesystem corruption. Contrast that with FAT&amp;#x27;s simplicity, minimal (effectively none) write caching, and the tradition of cutting power as soon as you returned to a DOS prompt. Maybe that&amp;#x27;s actually the true &amp;quot;worse is better&amp;quot;.</text></comment>