More trouble than it is worth?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip Sep 08, 2011 5:13 AM EDT |
First off, I haven't used a comprehensive cleaning tool since the days of Norton Cleansweep on Windows 98SE. It might have been the less than stellar "architecture" of Windows 98SE, but Cleansweep only served to prolong the life of Win98SE in a state that can be described as undead. After a comprehensive cleaning with Cleansweep, Windows 98SE would, in my experience, die with 80% probability within the coming 2-3 months. That may have spoiled my expectations of such tools. My apprehension comes from this in the last paragraph. BleachBit is a powerful file-cleaning detergent. It works well with relative ease. But using it carelessly can have worse results than tossing bleach into a washing machine filled with colorful clothes. It comes with no Undo command. No matter how wonderful, easy and newbie friendly Bleachbit is portrayed in the bulk of the article, I consider this bit a big red flag. A tool isn't wonderful when it's simplified GUI lulls you into a false sense of harmlessness and subsequently lets you destroy your Linux install with a few clicks. This article does a disservice to newbies. A newbie probably doesn't know the "best practises" of Linux maintenance. They probably don't have their /home on a separate partition (all Distro's should make this standard in the newbie installation options). Using a tool like Bleachbit without precaution could potentially render their system unusable and their own files on /home "lost". Not everybody has a resident Linux geek on hand to salvage the important stuff when the brown stuff has hit the rotary cooling device. Since a fresh reinstall of Linux takes about 30 minutes (when /home is on its own partition), one has to wonder if Bleachbit is worth the effort if your install is so deteriorated that it is running lousy because of all the cruft. (Not that I've ever seen such an installation. In my experience Linux just keeps humming along, no matter how much file cruft is accumulated.) The only application of bleachbit I see that may be worth the hassle is privacy protection. |
| penguinist Sep 08, 2011 5:43 AM EDT |
I have trouble with the two main assumptions of the article:
Secondly, the idea that disk space is somehow a costly and precious resource is sooo 1990's. The last time I bought a 1 terabyte hard drive I paid $59. This is 2011 and disk is so cheap as to be nearly free, so the time is long past to be spending valuable time worrying about saving 10 cents worth of disk space. |
| jdixon Sep 08, 2011 8:50 AM EDT |
> The only application of bleachbit I see that may be worth the hassle is privacy protection. While I agree, it's not like that's not a good reason. I believe it removes flash cookies, which is almost a good enough reason to use it in and of itself. |
| gus3 Sep 08, 2011 12:48 PM EDT |
Unused files do increase the likelihood of file fragmentation, which will slow down file access. |
| krisum Sep 08, 2011 5:27 PM EDT |
> Unused files do increase the likelihood of file fragmentation, which will slow down file access. If the unused files are mostly small in size, then removing them is unlikely to cure fragmentation caused due to their empty spots. If those are large then fragmentation will hardly be the problem due to those. In either case I highly doubt if the difference after removing them will be measurable. If the user removes those files and then defragments the drive, then it might help. |
| kenholmz Sep 08, 2011 5:57 PM EDT |
I use Bleach sparingly and judiciously. The notation regarding newbies is worthwhile. Geek or not, my home directory resides on a different partition on a different hard drive and I have no doubts about my ability to restore my system. If I am proven wrong about this I still have not doubt about my ability to recover. |
| BernardSwiss Sep 08, 2011 6:28 PM EDT |
A separate home partition is simply good practice, and should be standard practice, regardless of which version of Linux -- or Windows, for that matter -- one chooses to rely on. Thus I still must fiddle with partition management (though GParted/Parted magic have made this a trivial, pointy-clicky procedure) even with supposedly "fire-and-forget" newbie install disks. I've always found it distinctly grating, that supposedly "newbie-friendly" distros don't at least offer this as a recommended option during install. |
| gus3 Sep 08, 2011 8:01 PM EDT |
@krisum: The number of files is irrelevant. It's the sizes of the holes between them that matters, and how the filesystem allocates space for new files, or files' appendages. Using a 1M hole for a file that ultimately uses 2M isn't a good idea, but prematurely flushed buffers can cause exactly that. |
| krisum Sep 09, 2011 11:57 AM EDT |
@gus3, Right removing some medium sized files that are occupying larger space as you mention might help a bit in some extreme cases, but without explicit defragmentation it is unlikely to be noticeable. Even then fragmentation can cause problems only if disk is almost full. There is no need for users to even think about this unless a disk is reaching its full capacity, and even then getting a spare disk is a far better option. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!