Hi Anders,
So, is ext3/ext2 the standard file system for GNU/linux?
I don't believe you can speak of a standard. The "vanilla" kernel >has several file systems, and they're all interoperable, in the sense >that a file stored on one system can be moved to another without alteration.
That makes sense to me.
If so, why spend so much time developing other kinds of filesystems like Reiser FS, XFS, JFS?
One file system is good at one thing, another are good at different things. Hans Reiser & co. have very specific ideas on how to develop >a file system, the people at SGI have different ideas and their experiences with high performance graphics systems has evolved into present day XFS.
This is indeed true. However how does this help a "normal" home PC user decide on a file system? I don't run high performance graphics programs on my pc. Does this mean I definitely should not use XFS?
A file system is critical to any operating system and I think it would be much better if everyone could just focus their efforts on improving one file system. This is the case with MS Windows. They started out with FAT, then moved on to FAT32 and finally are using NTFS. The same goes for other stuff in the open source community like KDE and Gnome for example. This "multiplicity" approach hurts linux as a whole. Linux software as a whole should not compete against other linux software but should compete against other OS's software.
Head down to your local library and check out a book called "On the origin of species" by Charles Darwin. It may not be on the comp.sci. curriculum yet, but it should be.
This is certainly true for living organisms. I think software falls into a different category. Focusing all attention on one project instead of 4 or 5 would be much better for the software community in the long run. I mean what is the difference for a "normal" linux user between XFS and JFS? ~~Nick _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!