Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Btrfs May Be The Default File-System In Ubuntu 10.10

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    I read the headline and about shit a brick. However, after reading the criteria, the decision to explore btrfs doesn't seem that bad. This is the kind of thing that Canonical should be doing. A release LTS+1 (i.e. 10.10) should be very ambitious and include all kinds of shiny, new features like Fedora does. LTS+2 (i.e. 11.04) should also include lots of new features but maybe focus on UI or something that doesn't require as much coordination with upstream. LTS+3 (i.e. 11.10) shouldn't really change underlying architecture (like default file system), but should still pull in all the newest point releases and UI should be polished. That will set them up for a great development cycle for the next LTS. They can focus on polish and stability since they have made all their major architectural changes ~2 releases ago.
    This development cycle would develop some the great bleeding-edge improvements that Fedora typically includes, and it still has is able to stabilize into a great LTS release like RHEL.
    The downside to this is that for many average users that LTS+1 release might be kind of ugly.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by jbrown96 View Post
      I read the headline and about shit a brick. However, after reading the criteria, the decision to explore btrfs doesn't seem that bad. This is the kind of thing that Canonical should be doing. A release LTS+1 (i.e. 10.10) should be very ambitious and include all kinds of shiny, new features like Fedora does. LTS+2 (i.e. 11.04) should also include lots of new features but maybe focus on UI or something that doesn't require as much coordination with upstream. LTS+3 (i.e. 11.10) shouldn't really change underlying architecture (like default file system), but should still pull in all the newest point releases and UI should be polished. That will set them up for a great development cycle for the next LTS. They can focus on polish and stability since they have made all their major architectural changes ~2 releases ago.
      This development cycle would develop some the great bleeding-edge improvements that Fedora typically includes, and it still has is able to stabilize into a great LTS release like RHEL.
      The downside to this is that for many average users that LTS+1 release might be kind of ugly.
      I like your ideas.

      Comment


      • #13
        Is there a program (or any plans to develop one) that can mount Btrfs volumes in Windows, like ext2ifs?

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by wea0 View Post
          Is there a program (or any plans to develop one) that can mount Btrfs volumes in Windows, like ext2ifs?
          I can only think of colinux...

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by jbrown96 View Post
            I read the headline and about shit a brick. However, after reading the criteria, the decision to explore btrfs doesn't seem that bad. This is the kind of thing that Canonical should be doing. A release LTS+1 (i.e. 10.10) should be very ambitious and include all kinds of shiny, new features like Fedora does. LTS+2 (i.e. 11.04) should also include lots of new features but maybe focus on UI or something that doesn't require as much coordination with upstream. LTS+3 (i.e. 11.10) shouldn't really change underlying architecture (like default file system), but should still pull in all the newest point releases and UI should be polished. That will set them up for a great development cycle for the next LTS. They can focus on polish and stability since they have made all their major architectural changes ~2 releases ago.
            This development cycle would develop some the great bleeding-edge improvements that Fedora typically includes, and it still has is able to stabilize into a great LTS release like RHEL.
            The downside to this is that for many average users that LTS+1 release might be kind of ugly.
            I also like this.

            Comment


            • #16
              btrfs has at least one feature that is interesting for pretty much everyone: snapshots. A feature that is sorely missing from Linux filesystems, while other operating systems like FreeBSD provide it for a long time already.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by jbrown96 View Post
                I read the headline and about shit a brick. However, after reading the criteria, the decision to explore btrfs doesn't seem that bad. This is the kind of thing that Canonical should be doing. A release LTS+1 (i.e. 10.10) should be very ambitious and include all kinds of shiny, new features like Fedora does. LTS+2 (i.e. 11.04) should also include lots of new features but maybe focus on UI or something that doesn't require as much coordination with upstream. LTS+3 (i.e. 11.10) shouldn't really change underlying architecture (like default file system), but should still pull in all the newest point releases and UI should be polished. That will set them up for a great development cycle for the next LTS. They can focus on polish and stability since they have made all their major architectural changes ~2 releases ago.
                This development cycle would develop some the great bleeding-edge improvements that Fedora typically includes, and it still has is able to stabilize into a great LTS release like RHEL.
                The downside to this is that for many average users that LTS+1 release might be kind of ugly.
                Or how about going back to the days when alpha, beta, release candidate and release actually meant what they said? LTS+1, LTS+2 and LTS+3 are all basically alpha and beta crap and shouldn't be considered releases.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by brent View Post
                  btrfs has at least one feature that is interesting for pretty much everyone: snapshots. A feature that is sorely missing from Linux filesystems, while other operating systems like FreeBSD provide it for a long time already.
                  you talk as LVM was not readily avaiable to every linux user

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Since they are filesystem agnostic, LVM snapshots are not very flexible and performance is bad. Sorry, but they aren't a viable option.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      "LVM has the ability to create a snapshot of a logical volume, which is like an instant copy of the original. Changes to the snapshot are not visible in the original and vice versa. This is done by using a technique called copy-on-write (COW)" Well, yeah, apparently LVM can do COW too.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X