On 05/03/2015 01:46 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
Anton, JDD,
This entire premise is WRONG, and it IS THE REASON LINUX HAS NEVER BEEN A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS DESKTOP:
That is complete and utter nonsense. Plenty of people at RedHat and Novell can tell you otherwise.
<quote>
but the reality is that unless this kind of push is made how else are *users* going to aggressively debug this in the field...
</quote>
WTF?
You foist an experimental filesystem on unsuspecting *users* wanting them to *aggressively debug* with what might be their family photos, financial data, etc..??
Stop exaggerating, David. This was never 'unexpected', it was highly publicised. As I've said repeatedly, Linux is about CHOICES and you can choose what FS to use where. Its Windows where you don't have the choices. Yes having to make decisions is stressful. Having to decide how to partition things is stressful. Mind you, I have a partition for my photographs, by year, and also by special outings. I have a partition for "financials", that is accounts, tax records, communications with banks, bank statements, bills. These get backed up They get backed up separately. I *CHOOSE* to do that. Linux is about choices. Even if you take the defaults, there is a separate /home for all your treasures. IIR the default for that is now XFS. Also IIR XFS has been around longer, is more proven that ext4. Personally I think 7 have found ReiserFS to be the most reliable so I *CHOOSE* to make use of that on my productions partitions where I keep the above mentioned
Forgive me for expecting more from filesystem developers and distributions. When Linux is touted as an alternative for new users to try, then we have got to quit doing things like this. Anton, JDD, myself and others here, can look at whats going on with a FS and can be expected to help by reporting bugs, etc.. That's not what this cautionary tale is about.
This is about the user that gets a copy of the openSuSE install and says, you know, I've heard good things about Linux, I think I'll pop this install in....
And is presented with choices. perhaps he's been brainwashed by the Establishment into thinking that he never needs to make choices, but life's not like that. The reality is that if he's got this far he's curious and is a 'tinkerer'. Heck, even Windows accommodates tinkerers to a high degree, they can fiddle with their machines 'appearance' in so many ways and do meaningless things like de-fragment their disk and install AV. The Linux installer gives them lots and lots of 'buttons' and things to play with.
btrfs, xfs, reiserfs, ext3, ext4, etc.. mean nothing to the user and if he says, "hmm.., this btrfs is at the front of the list, it must be the most reliable, I'll try it"... Watch out..
First on a n alphabetic list ... Your exaggerating again, David. You're treating whoever it is that is curious enough to experiment with wiping out Windows to install Linux as of he was dumb. And yes, perhaps he's not going to wipe his disk and devote it to Linux, perhaps he's taken the time read up on shrinking the Windows partition, which means he's gained a modicum of knowledge about partitioning. Perhaps he's not the idiot you make him out to be and actually read a couple or more articles and this has led him to mention of file systems. The history of BtrFS is, I don't disagree, ignominious. Perhaps he's found this because he's googles -- and who isn't smart enough to "Go Google" in this day and age before undertaking a new venture so as to better understand alternatives and risks ... Its the "Foder's Guide to ..." just about everything. Or perhaps he joins a 'new-to-Linux' list somewhere or even *shock horror* one like this! But assuming that because he has CHOSEN to install Linux that is it and he's incapable of making further *CHOICES* or asking the 'what if ..' or 'can I...' questions presupposes he' in the lower rankings of any intelligence scale and that is just plain INSULTING.
I have never, in the 17 years I've worked with Linux, seen so many FS failures with data loss as I've seen in the past 12 months related to btrfs.
LOL! Well UNIX began with one of the most unreliable file systems imaginable, the fames V6/V6 file system. Even though the Berkeley Fast File System was 'better organized' it still was not log oriented. It was a long time before people realized that you had to write the data and the metadata separately AND IN THE RIGHT ORDER to be able to have it in a way that could survive a crash, and even longer before we go log oriented file systems. Later studies and models showed that a log oriented file system was adequate and could be extended so that if the logging was goo enough you didn't need the file system :-) So your assertion of 17 years is sort of iffy, David. You do take regular backups, I take it? One of the things about BtrFS (and XFS) is that snapshots are a form of backup. When I've used "Real Computers" and you get a patch, you can back out of a applying that patch. By that definition UNIX never was and Linux hasn't been a "Real Computer". But now with snapshots built in the zypper-type operations (be they command line, Yast or automatic) we have that capability. Snapshots can also facilitate daily backups. Yes I realise that puts a load on the amount of space, but as many have pointed out, 'rotating rust is cheap'. I wonder if many of the problems that have arise with BtrFS is because they are on too small a partition? -- 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