Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Oct 2009 21:13 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Thread beginning with comment 391131
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Wise timing, Apple. I see what you did there
by boldingd on Mon 26th Oct 2009 19:45
in reply to "RE[2]: Wise timing, Apple. I see what you did there"
Aren't most Linux systems still using ext2 for their filesystems?
No, actually: most of the distros I've tried have used ext3 as the default for some time, which is journaled. Some are even using ext4 now.
I still can't find a Linux distro with btrfs as the default (or even an option for non-/boot filesystems). Which is a shame, I'd like to check it out and compare to ZFS on my FreeBSD server.
Just because the installer won't create a BTRFS file system doesn't mean it's unavailable. It's at least possible that, if the kernel on the install disk had BTRFS support built, that you could create a BTRFS file-system before you start the installation (say, by using a convenient live disk, like gparted or SystemRescueCD) and just select that partition as the installation target from withing your distro's installer. Slightly technical? Sure, but not impossible, and well within the capabilities of... well, anyone who has any business testing and speed-racing BTRFS.




Member since:
2005-07-14
Aren't most Linux systems still using ext2 for their filesystems? And he's complaining about HFS+ having legacy features? At least it's journalled. :-P
I still can't find a Linux distro with btrfs as the default (or even an option for non-/boot filesystems). Which is a shame, I'd like to check it out and compare to ZFS on my FreeBSD server.
OS X is the best desktop (and laptop) UNIX I've ever used.