Btrfs May Be The Default File-System In Ubuntu 10.10

[Xake]

I would prefer it became the default in 10.10, t'would accelerate integration/adoption...
Those who don't like problem solving or bug submitting can stick with 10.04 & wait till things stabilise with 11.04/11.10.

I think I would prefer EXT4 as default, but btrfs as an easy choice, since there are always joe sixpacks that has no clue what version of ubuntu brings what problems, and make it harder for them == bad idea. That kind of things gives linux in general bad publicity when they lose their data.

[jalyst]

or just install EXT4 instead of the default.

[jalyst]

I would prefer it became the default in 10.10, t'would accelerate integration/adoption...
Those who don't like problem solving or bug submitting can stick with 10.04 & wait till things stabilise with 11.04/11.10.

[nanonyme]

"LVM has the ability to create a snapshot of a logical volume, which is like an instant copy of the original. Changes to the snapshot are not visible in the original and vice versa. This is done by using a technique called copy-on-write (COW)" Well, yeah, apparently LVM can do COW too.

[brent]

Since they are filesystem agnostic, LVM snapshots are not very flexible and performance is bad. Sorry, but they aren't a viable option.

[krogy]

btrfs has at least one feature that is interesting for pretty much everyone: snapshots. A feature that is sorely missing from Linux filesystems, while other operating systems like FreeBSD provide it for a long time already.

you talk as LVM was not readily avaiable to every linux user

[siride]

I read the headline and about shit a brick. However, after reading the criteria, the decision to explore btrfs doesn't seem that bad. This is the kind of thing that Canonical should be doing. A release LTS+1 (i.e. 10.10) should be very ambitious and include all kinds of shiny, new features like Fedora does. LTS+2 (i.e. 11.04) should also include lots of new features but maybe focus on UI or something that doesn't require as much coordination with upstream. LTS+3 (i.e. 11.10) shouldn't really change underlying architecture (like default file system), but should still pull in all the newest point releases and UI should be polished. That will set them up for a great development cycle for the next LTS. They can focus on polish and stability since they have made all their major architectural changes ~2 releases ago.
This development cycle would develop some the great bleeding-edge improvements that Fedora typically includes, and it still has is able to stabilize into a great LTS release like RHEL.
The downside to this is that for many average users that LTS+1 release might be kind of ugly.

Or how about going back to the days when alpha, beta, release candidate and release actually meant what they said? LTS+1, LTS+2 and LTS+3 are all basically alpha and beta crap and shouldn't be considered releases.

[brent]

btrfs has at least one feature that is interesting for pretty much everyone: snapshots. A feature that is sorely missing from Linux filesystems, while other operating systems like FreeBSD provide it for a long time already.

[zoomblab]

I read the headline and about shit a brick. However, after reading the criteria, the decision to explore btrfs doesn't seem that bad. This is the kind of thing that Canonical should be doing. A release LTS+1 (i.e. 10.10) should be very ambitious and include all kinds of shiny, new features like Fedora does. LTS+2 (i.e. 11.04) should also include lots of new features but maybe focus on UI or something that doesn't require as much coordination with upstream. LTS+3 (i.e. 11.10) shouldn't really change underlying architecture (like default file system), but should still pull in all the newest point releases and UI should be polished. That will set them up for a great development cycle for the next LTS. They can focus on polish and stability since they have made all their major architectural changes ~2 releases ago.
This development cycle would develop some the great bleeding-edge improvements that Fedora typically includes, and it still has is able to stabilize into a great LTS release like RHEL.
The downside to this is that for many average users that LTS+1 release might be kind of ugly.

I also like this.

[loonyphoenix]

Is there a program (or any plans to develop one) that can mount Btrfs volumes in Windows, like ext2ifs?

I can only think of colinux...