Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th May 2010 22:23 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "UDS is over! And in the customary wrap-up I stood up and told the audience what the Foundations team have been discussing all week. One of the items is almost certainly going to get a little bit of publicity. We are going to be doing the work to have btrfs as an installation option, and we have not ruled out making it the default. I do stress the emphasis of that statement, a number of things would have to be true for us to take that decision."
Permalink for comment 424650
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: It's an odd switch
by Laurence on Sat 15th May 2010 13:08 UTC in reply to "RE: It's an odd switch"
Member since:

blanket "it's not just ready" not based on actual arguments are a bit useless to me.
we've been using BTRFS in all builds for a long time now, and frankly we have had more
issues with the ext3 side of the world than with btrfs

But that comment is no more helpful either as it doesn't discuss what the issues with ext3 were let the fact that ext3 has been superseded by ext4.

I want to know:
* Why was BtrFS less of an issue? (and what the issues were)
* What were the issues with ext3?
* Would those issues still have existed if they'd used ext4?
* and were the BtrFS issues more technical than the ext3 issues (it's all very good and well saying there were more issues with ext3, but if those issues were easy to fix and BtrFS's weren't, then ext3 will still make a better consumer fs for the moment).

Reply Parent Score: 2