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

[pal666]

And since they are choosing BTRFS, does that mean they think it is or will be the better choice for desktop than EXT4?

yes, they mention it in change page. why would they chose worse option?

Also, we will get to see how deep this maturity runs when Fedora 33 is benchmarked, and if someone at Red Hat will join SUSE in calling Phoronix 'garbage'.

fedora will mark vm and db directories nocow. though any garbage test could use wrong directory with wrong settings

[pal666]

The live image installer is just essentially preformatted filesystems with packages pre-installed that gets synced over to the hard disk ie) rsync or dd.

i'm pretty sure that i was using live installer and it had disk partitioning(with several methods) as required step

[pal666]

I'm curious how many people would use the default file-system without looking at it.

i'm sure it's majority of users. and more important part, default filesystem will get best treatment from distro devs(it doesn't necessarily mean kernel code, but all surrounding infrastructure)

[pal666]

It is Fedora so you should expect to have some problems.

it was not fedora, it was fedora's development branch. on fedora you expect no problems

[pal666]

I looked over the Fedora page linked in the article. No indication if the installer will give a user any choices other than btrfs, but it would be nice to see alternative choices for the sake of diversity.

it's very stupid to even think about removing all choices and calling the only choice left "default". installer supports several filesystems(including btrfs) and will continue to support them

Do Windows users experience space limitation issues like Linux users?

even worse

What do Windows users do about these space limitations?

buy larger drives, or wipe and reinstall
you can't come up with smarter questions?

[pal666]

So .. when switch to ZFS?

zfs is obsolete by design

[pal666]

As a Linux user, I don't believe I have ever had a "space limitation issue"

If my drive is full, I delete something. regardless of which OS or filesystem I use.

space limitation issue stems from need to predict how to split your space between root and home. and since you can't predict it, you have either too large root with wasted space, or too small root with failed distro upgrade for example. afterwards you can delete something(i.e. uninstall and write somewhere note to reinstall it later), but by that time you've already had "space limitation issue". with btrfs you don't have to split and you can't have this issue. and don't have to uninstall something

[pal666]

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.

btrfs declared stable all features which will be used by fedora. i'm sure you were already sent to status page with bunch of green oks.

Apparently, the aspiring Fedora Workstation user is clamouring for all these "advanced features" yet somehow can't seem to cope with Vi.

all those features just work seamlessly. unlike vi, which doesn't even have exit

[pal666]

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).

it has zero relevance. suse has same customers and facebook is not desktop user. redhad just doesn't have btrfs engineers and can't support it at all

[pal666]

The default for Fedora is XFS, a highly performant and stable filesystem. BTRFS is buggy and suffers from severe performance issues as can be seen in all XFS, EXT4 vs BTRFS benchmarks

xfs is more buggy than btrfs according to facebook statistics and suffers from more performance issues with proper benchmarks. and it can't even be resized. so, moron, what is the speed of reallocating of disk space between two xfs partitions? with btrfs speed is infinite