Approved: Fedora 33 Desktop Variants Defaulting To Btrfs File-System

[_ReD_]

Upgrades are not touched at all.

BTRFS is the default for new installations alone and it is just the default. You can change it however you want.

[Mario Junior]

I use this on OpenSUSE:

Seriously, Fedora implementation is very poor compared with OpenSUSE.

[klara]

what is inconsistent, btrfs offers features most other filesystems don't, vi does not offer anything more than nano

Regarding vi and nano, I disagree. There are some features I do miss when going from vi to nano (I don't even mean vim-minimal, these examples are tested on nvi). Keep in mind that I don't use nano regularly, so there may be features I am not aware of.

- You can easily grab the output of commands in vi. In normal mode: ":r!<command>" I find this particularly useful for example when editing /etc/fstab. Then I can do things like: ":r!blkid -o value -s UUID /dev/sda3". You can also execute commands with ":!command" without reading the output as well. I usually do this when editing latex documents: ":!lualatex %". % substitutes to the name of the file. You can also use %:r which is the file without the extension, so keeping with the previous example I can ":!evince %:r.pdf&". I am not aware of any way to do either in nano other than exiting to the shell. You can of course have another terminal open to do this, but if you modify the file you have to restart nano for the change to appear anyway.
- You can use vi in ex mode, in normal mode: Q. Can also be started with "ex" directly. This can be useful if your internet connection is particularly bad.
- You can redo your last insert, deletion or whatever with "." in normal mode.
- The regex/searching is more flexible in vi. For example, you can delete from one search to another with ":/search1/,/search2/d".

There are probably more, but these are the main ones I think of right now. I'm not here to start yet another editor war, vi/vim is my personal preference but I understand that others have different tastes.

[kloczek]

of filesystem. it was designed before invention of cow btrees, so to get cow it had to miss on btrees

So which one Linux FS is using free lists (ZFS) instead allocation structures like all classic filesystems?
Maybe you shoud try to check list from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Summary to point on Linux filesystem which covers at least half of those features?

Do you know that ZDS is using AV trees which are optimised to lowest numer of write operations on single in tree opeeration?

[pal666]

Maybe you shoud try to check list from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Summary to point on Linux filesystem which covers at least half of those features?

maybe you should read what zfs engineers said about its design compared to btrfs in 2009(yes, you've missed 11 years of education) instead of reading advertisements? my first feature is "can be resized" and zfs fails at it

This section contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (August 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

[pal666]

the only thing from that list what is missing in btrfs is integrated caching btw, and there's a list of btrfs features which are missing from zfs. and at some features in zfs list btrfs is better, for example it doesn't require several drives to autoheal. "at least half", imbecile

[pal666]

Do you know

education for zfs imbeciles https://lwn.net/Articles/342892/

In my opinion, the basic architecture of btrfs is more suitable to storage than that of ZFS.

To solve this problem, we (the ZFS developers) invented ways to create big blocks out of little blocks ("gang blocks") and other unpleasant workarounds. In our defense, at the time btrees and extents seemed fundamentally incompatible with copy-on-write

In contrast, the items-in-a-btree approach is extremely space efficient and flexible

[numasan]

lol what a troll

Yes I fell for it. Thing is, why would anyone take anything you write seriously after reading such nonsense? Unless you are just here to troll, of course.

[kloczek]

maybe you should read what zfs engineers said about its design compared to btrfs in 2009(yes, you've missed 11 years of education) instead of reading advertisements? my first feature is "can be resized" and zfs fails at it

Maybe you should read that since then only new FS in Linux which is btrfs only have been tryint to mimic ZFS??
That try was only partial as long as long as it was not by design trying to archive any crucial goals which ZFS archived and by this btrfs underneath is usong tevhnologies which are so old as Linux themeselve ..

[pal666]

Great so no upgrade from F32 to F33 but whole new installation and configuration of everything. Thnx RHEL

what are you talking about? are you off your meds?