Fedora Doesn't Yet Enable F2FS File-System Support

[jimbohale]

Well, I'd say I definitely exaggerated his wording a bit, I thought that was ok to make a point. Used to be, times change, I guess.

Maybe since the last experimental filesystem (btrfs when it was still experimental) they decided they wanted to be less bleeding edge. Given that for general purpose use f2fs does appear to be under active development that might be their logic, and you can't really blame them for not trusting something they don't know for sure is stable. I don't know, and I don't really care, I'm just speculating.

[bridgman]

Switzerland, actually, ABBA and all that stuff.

Isn't ABBA Swedish, not Swiss ?

[psychoticmeow]

Well, I'd say I definitely exaggerated his wording a bit, I thought that was ok to make a point. Used to be, times change, I guess.

You didn't exaggerate his words, you exaggerated his point until it was just a caricature of itself and then dismissed it.

[Awesomeness]

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.

While it's legit to ask whether the reasons for refusing it back then are still valid today, your argument is totally stupid.
Fedora does not include lots of software from Ubuntu and Android ? Unity, Mir, Dalvik,?

Technologies targeted at phone operating systems is just not the primary focus of Fedora.

[gens]

While it's legit to ask whether the reasons for refusing it back then are still valid today, your argument is totally stupid.
Fedora does not include lots of software from Ubuntu and Android ? Unity, Mir, Dalvik,?

Technologies targeted at phone operating systems is just not the primary focus of Fedora.

yes, F2FS is totally not in any way useful for desktops with SSD-s

[gbcox]

While it's legit to ask whether the reasons for refusing it back then are still valid today, your argument is totally stupid.
Fedora does not include lots of software from Ubuntu and Android ? Unity, Mir, Dalvik,?

Technologies targeted at phone operating systems is just not the primary focus of Fedora.

<Sigh> F2FS isn't targeted at just at "phone operating systems"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2FS

I know the story behind Unity, Mir and Dalvik... that comparison is apples and oranges, and you should know better.

[RahulSundaram]

yes, F2FS is totally not in any way useful for desktops with SSD-s

It could be but features in the kernel aren't enabled by default unless there is some leg work done to convince the Fedora kernel developers. Eric has outlined what could look like

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-December/205753.html

If anyone is interested in getting involved, do feel free to post to the list about it.

[gbcox]

It could be but features in the kernel aren't enabled by default unless there is some leg work done to convince the Fedora kernel developers. Eric has outlined what could look like

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-December/205753.html

If anyone is interested in getting involved, do feel free to post to the list about it.

The XFStest scenario assumes that Fedora is being somewhat innovative... in this instance we're not. We're playing catch-up.
The horse has already left the barn. The longer we delay, the sillier we look. The requirement is obvious. The bugzilla on it
is active. They'll either turn it on, or explain why not. People can then judge for themselves.

[Awesomeness]

yes, F2FS is totally not in any way useful for desktops with SSD-s

Red Hat invests resources in features useful for RHEL. RHEL 8 will be released in 3 or so years and then it'll get support for additional 10 years.
How on earth would a FS limited to a maximum of 16 TB still make sense in 13 years???

These days Josh Boyer is not opposed to F2FS: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipe...er/205733.html
But QA'ing F2FS will certainly left to community members as RH surely has no interest in it.

[timtas]

You didn't exaggerate his words, you exaggerated his point until it was just a caricature of itself and then dismissed it.

Ok, I re-read the original post, that said:

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

My first reading was more or less: "Their decision must be the right one (for Fedora users), as they are not idiots". Now, you might understand that this upset me, because at Google, they are not idiots too, and decided to drop ext3 support from chrome os and disable using sd cards in Android Kitkat for "security reasons".

But as I look at it now, the sentence only says: "Their decision must be the right one (for them), as they are not idiots", to which I have no objections at all, even in the knowing that companies full of clever people occasionally still do make wrong decisions for themselves. But that's none of my business.

So, I take back the "fuck you" and take your "fuck off" on my chin.
Bye