On 05/03/2015 02:50 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
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.
This was my whole point..... The new user who says, "gee, I think I'll pop this disk in and install it.." is the person to keep in mind. I'm not worried about the experienced user who has good backup practices, etc.., etc.., etc... Unless we now want to change the narrative from "Linux is a safe, solid and secure alternative, give it a try" to "Don't try it unless everything is backed up separately", then it just makes sense to provide filesystem recommendations accordingly. Sheesh, it doesn't take rocket-science to figure out, "hmm.., if this FS is not yet fully baked, then maybe suggesting one that is is the proper course", but apparently it does. That's all I'm saying. When we talk about not using btrfs in out "production machines" yet, then if we are not passing that information along to new users via FS selection ordering or at least providing a prominent note reflecting its status, then we are doing a disservice. I'm not going to go pull quotes from all the threads on this issue, but it is a fair summary that for 90% of those who have experienced FS space exhaustion with btrfs -- would not have selected btrfs and would not have ended up in that situation if they had been given information regarding btrfs's potential to do that. In other words, if they had been given enough information to make an educated decision about whether they wanted to try an experimental FS with the potential for data loss, or stick with a tried and true FS, 90% of those hit with data loss would not have chosen btrfs to begin with. So do we give users sufficient information to make an educated choice at filesystem selection time, or do we just continue to use the suckers that choose btrfs as unwitting guineas? Even if we didn't know about the potential for FS exhaustion due to the snapshotting when 13.1 was released, we damn sure know about it now, and should act accordingly. Or we can fail to learn from history once again and be destined to repeat them over and over again... I fall into the camp that says "if you know about a problem, you have a duty to warn about it and to take steps to insure the problem can be made reasonably safe." To me that means an clear and prominent installer note at FS selection time so users can choose whether to become beta testers or not. I don't think that is asking too much and I don't think that is "chicken little", I just think that's smart. Note: ad hominem replies are deleted without further reading. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org