On Friday 2013-10-18 17:32, Lew Wolfgang wrote:
Why would *anyone* want to still use reiser3? There are, arguably, better choices available in this decade.
If something is working well, why change?
Oh, I see, you are in the "Denial" phase (cf. Five Stages of Grief). Because certain filesystems work "better" than "well", and the defaults _during installation_ go for the better. Simple as that. A reason why FAT is enlisted is not because we like it, but because there may be corner cases of interoperability with Windows. With a Linux fs like reiser3 however, the Windows argument is out the window.
Of course, we'll have to move from reiserfs at some point. Maybe this is the time?
(From parallel subthread:)
What is the recommendation? FAT? That was one of the installation choices. Is FAT better than reiserfs?
<sarcasm> Maybe it is? If things work "well" with reiser3, and you see FAT being better than reiser3 because it is listed in the default installation and reiser3 is not, surely you would not mind storing your 70 TB of data on FAT (hypothetically speaking — if FAT could hold that amount of data, which it does not). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org