The Btrfs Windows Driver Updated With RAID Support & Other Features

[chithanh]

Better let us know how it sucks

When I still used btrfs, I regularly ran into the problem that compiles would abort with ENOSPC error, even though plenty of disk space was left. The problem is documented here:

https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Problem_FAQ#I_get_.22No_space_left_on_device.22_errors.2C_but_df_says_I.27ve_got_lots_of_space

Then my Mozilla profile's sqlite database would frequently become corrupted, but that could be blamed on Mozilla and their use of patched internal sqlite. Though it never happened on other filesystems.

[waxhead]

Debian isn't exactly the best source of info for btrfs, because you know, old kernel and userspace stuff.

Not that btrfs isn't terribly stable anyway.

Did you even read the article at all? It contains information dated 26.June 2016... considering that I posted the link less than a month after (24.July 2016), and that Debian (Stretch) at that time runs on kernel 4.6 from 18.July I can't understand how you can claim that Debian is on a old kernel + userspace.

I have been a Debian user for years now , and from and including Debian Etch which was released in 2007 - almost 10 years ago the 'testing' distribution runs quite well and I have never had any significant issues with it that was not fixed in a few weeks.

Debian names their distributions: stable, testing and unstable. There is even a experimental branch.
testing could have just as well be called stabilizing or rolling and it is not bad at all. Even Ubuntu (that some for reasons unknown to me prefer) is based off Debian testing.

The only time Debian testing is a bit old is during the freeze.

[starshipeleven]

Did you even read the article at all? It contains information dated 26.June 2016... considering that I posted the link less than a month after (24.July 2016), and that Debian (Stretch) at that time runs on kernel 4.6 from 18.July I can't understand how you can claim that Debian is on a old kernel + userspace.

Because the closest Debian Stable release is Jessie, and that is using kernel 3.16 I think.
Does not matter what other unstable/testing/whatever are doing, 99% of its userbase is on Stable.

Debian names their distributions: stable, testing and unstable. There is even a experimental branch.
testing could have just as well be called stabilizing or rolling and it is not bad at all.

It has no dedicated security team, unlike Stable. It also may (and did in the past) feature sweeping changes that broke systems.

It is NOT and will NEVER be recommended for these reasons. Look at their wiki about Debian Testing sometimes.

Even Ubuntu (that some for reasons unknown to me prefer) is based off Debian testing.

Ubuntu has its own security team that ports patches around on that.

Also, non-LTS Ubuntu is based off Debian Unstable.

[waxhead]

Because the closest Debian Stable release is Jessie, and that is using kernel 3.16 I think.
Does not matter what other unstable/testing/whatever are doing, 99% of its userbase is on Stable.

It has no dedicated security team, unlike Stable. It also may (and did in the past) feature sweeping changes that broke systems.

It is NOT and will NEVER be recommended for these reasons. Look at their wiki about Debian Testing sometimes.

Ubuntu has its own security team that ports patches around on that.

Also, non-LTS Ubuntu is based off Debian Unstable.

Well, I personally use Debian STABLE for things that are meant to be stable. Servers and stuff like that. On my desktop (that is backed up on a STABLE debain) I run testing and as I said I have not had any issues. During a upgrade apt / aptitude will tell you what potentially breaks. If so I usually wait some days and things are resolved quite nicely.

As for security. Yes, testing does not have a security team - but there is not much need for it either. Bugfixes including security bugs are fixed in unstable and are migrated to the testing repo. This is not much worse than Debian stable... how do you think some of those security issues gets discovered? . As long as there is activity you get fixes and that implies that security bugs is taken care of as well. But as with all security - rarely used packages rarely gets love and are a risk no matter if you are running stable, testing or unstable. Also all Ubuntu bugfixes are usually (the last time I checked) pushed to Debian as well. Ergo Debian get bugfixes the same time Ubuntu gets them and assuming the bugfixes are thrown in the unstable branch it requires the bugfix to stay for 5,10 or 2 days in unstable depending on the urgency before it's migrated to testing.

So while I agree that Debian devs will not recommend running testing for anything serious it is at the same time for reasons above not really such a bad idea after all