On 09/26/2015 08:40 PM, Xen wrote:
I must say I feel the same way about it as you do, and I know much less about it than you do.
BtrFS includes all manner of features into the filesystem layer that should logically belong to the partition manager such as LVM. That is why I prefer to not use BtrFS because I'm afraid that if tools are going to center around supporting BtrFS you will get a form of lock-in the way Apple is trying to get with their iPad ebooks.
What we need is for ReiserFS to be "supported" and reiser4 development to take off. Maybe it was Reiser himself, maybe it was a team; Russian made good chess players and they've seen some mathematical greats. But the ReiserFS proved a quick, well thought out development. OK, so it wasn't/isn't totally bug free. But it completed quickly compared to BtrFS. It's proven remarkably reliable. If you've read brooks, you'll will be familiar with what he termed "The Second System Effect". This abstract puts it very well: http://www.the-wabe.com/notebook/second-system.html The adjectives and hyperlinks) here are well chosen. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/S/second-system-effect.html I particularly like "feature-laden monstrosity". That seems a good description of BtrFS. If its a SSD file system you're looking for then there are later, better thought out attempts that are /specific/ to SSD rather than a generalized FS with features for SSD. I've tried NilsFS with some success. Maybe Reiser4 is a "second system effect" thing. I don't know. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org