Fedora Doesn't Yet Enable F2FS File-System Support

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Fedora Doesn't Yet Enable F2FS File-System Support

While F2FS is a promising open-source file-system looking to live up to its name as being the Flash-Friendly File-System, one major distribution not yet willing to enable it within its kernel is (surprisingly) Fedora...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTg3MDQ

[willmore]

I ran into this a few months back (on F20). I installed the f2fs tools and built a nice little filesystem. Then I tried to mount it. No dice.

WTF? You included the tools, but no the kernel support? Not only that, but they didn't even offer a package for the kernel module. The IRC support was not horribly helpful. Responses always seem to be "This is how we do it, don't like it? Go somewhere else." Not horribly helpful.

[Awesomeness]

Fedora is a pretty stable distribution these days, not experimental.

[gbcox]

Good Question

I'll ask the development list...the previous line was it wasn't included because F2FS was under heavy development, you don't want it, etc. etc.
However, the fact the Ubuntu and other distributions ship it, plus the fact the Google Nexus 9 uses it as the default FS seem to negate that
stance.

[liam]

Boyer has a bug up his bum about alternate fs.
Chris Murphy, among others, has been trying to get him to be willing to adopt btrfs for at least /, but, again, he won't budge. For that, at least, he says the reason is that it's developers haven't said its ready and Fedora doesn't have any developers working on it (not sure that's a problem as of imagine there are many required components to fedora that don't have developers working on them at fedora).

[gbcox]

Boyer has a bug up his bum about alternate fs.
Chris Murphy, among others, has been trying to get him to be willing to adopt btrfs for at least /, but, again, he won't budge. For that, at least, he says the reason is that it's developers haven't said its ready and Fedora doesn't have any developers working on it (not sure that's a problem as of imagine there are many required components to fedora that don't have developers working on them at fedora).

Well, BTRFS is another issue all together - and BTW, it's there. I've been using BTRFS Raid6 since F20. It's not the default.... yet... but I would expect that happening around F23 since the BTRFS FB developers
have been making quite a few improvements.

Back to the issue at hand however, F2FS - the "experimental/dangerous" rationale just doesn't hold weight if Google is using it for Nexus 9 and
Ubuntu of all distributions is including it. That isn't intended to be a bash against Ubuntu either... it's critical of Fedora. Ubuntu in my mind
has always been targeted to people who are new to Linux... something easy to learn and use. So, F2FS isn't an issue for new users, but
is too dangerous for the Fedora user? That's just ridiculous.

[johnc]

I guess Samsung isn't in the official RedHat clique, so I can see why RH looks down on F2FS.

[jimbohale]

I guess Samsung isn't in the official RedHat clique, so I can see why RH looks down on F2FS.

I suspect they have good reasons for not including it... they are clearly not idiots.

[NotMine999]

Not Quite

I suspect they have good reasons for not including it... they are clearly not idiots.

If any of the many complaints (from Lennart, from Sarah Sharp, etc. and forget the fact they were only pinpointing Linus) about "bad behavior" within the OSS development community are any indication, the reason(s?) might not be "technical" but "political" or "legal".

If there are technical issues that Fedora thinks are important, they might not be that critical in other distributions.

[timtas]

I suspect they have good reasons for not including it... they are clearly not idiots.

Yes, exactly, they are only doing this for the good of all of us and it is very ungrateful to even start questioning their decision.