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

[finalzone]

It is Fedora so you should expect to have some problems. The same applies to running Debian Bullseye or Debian Sid.

The poster mentioned "Rawhide" which is basically a development and semi-rolling snapshot.

[gnulinux82]

... and if someone at Red Hat will join SUSE in calling Phoronix 'garbage'.

When did they say this? Link?

[gbcox]

Hopefully things will be stable and work out. At least the excuses of "BtrFS is experimental", "it's under heavy development", etc. can't be used. Fedora has de-facto declared it stable - which is more than the BtrFS project would do. Apparently, the aspiring Fedora Workstation user is clamouring for all these "advanced features" yet somehow can't seem to cope with Vi.

[andyprough]

We get it, you love openSUSE and don't like Fedora.

[looks at my bare Arch/Artix core, my minimalist window manager, the minimalist terminal I've spent the past day hacking into a useful condition, my terminal web browser] Oh yes, I love your bloated distros, they are what I live for. I only wish I was worthy to use something truly and spectacularly bloated like Ubuntu.

[CommunityMember]

Red Hat's prior deprecating of Btrfs support puts them in a bit of an awkward position now and will be interesting to see if Btrfs is a success on Fedora whether they revisit their Btrfs status for RHEL 9.

I don't see a conflict here. RH is primarily focused on their (large) customers running (large (server)) systems that are not desktop oriented (sure, some people run EL7/8 on a desktop, but it is not an especially common case). And RH's primary consideration is for support of their customers, which care about the large system problems, for which btrfs is not currently a core requirement. This is equivalent to the ZFS discussion about BPR, which, in essence, is not entirely relevant for most large (server) customers, and is a contributing reason that Sun (and later Oracle) never prioritized the activity (the Solaris 11.4 method mostly sidesteps the hard work by (apparently) providing another level of indirection).

[Templar82]

[looks at my bare Arch/Artix core

Arch ships the -dev files/info with every package

blooooat

[elatllat]

I wonder if Ubuntu will end up switching from ZFS to btrfs like they switched from Mir to Gnome...I hope fedora speeds up the missing btrfs cache and encription features.

[jacob]

So .. when switch to ZFS?

Never.

[jacob]

I wonder if Ubuntu will end up switching from ZFS to btrfs like they switched from Mir to Gnome...I hope fedora speeds up the missing btrfs cache and encription features.

I hope so. I'm a mostly happy Ubuntu user but ZFS is a nonstarter for me.

[jacob]

Hopefully things will be stable and work out. At least the excuses of "BtrFS is experimental", "it's under heavy development", etc. can't be used. Fedora has de-facto declared it stable - which is more than the BtrFS project would do. Apparently, the aspiring Fedora Workstation user is clamouring for all these "advanced features" yet somehow can't seem to cope with Vi.

SUSE and Facebook declared it stable before. Fedora adopting it won't change the minds of ideologues and fanboys.