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."
Thread beginning with comment 424524
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why?
by TechGeek on Sat 15th May 2010 00:12 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Why use a default that Grub can't understand? That makes no sense what so ever. Not to mention that Btrfs is new enough that there aren't many rescue tools that support it. That will create a pain for experts and panic for a novice if they actually need to muck around recovering a system.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why?
by Laurence on Sat 15th May 2010 09:41 in reply to "Why?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Why use a default that Grub can't understand? That makes no sense what so ever. Not to mention that Btrfs is new enough that there aren't many rescue tools that support it. That will create a pain for experts and panic for a novice if they actually need to muck around recovering a system.


I don't pretent to be an expert on the inner workings of GRUB, but I'd imagin that filesystem support can be built into GRUB.

After all, GRUB didn't originally support ZFS but now OpenSolaris can boot ZFS filesystems.

I think the bigger issue is not GRUBs support but rather the fact that BtrFS isn't yet ready for consumer desktops

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Why?
by Fettarme H-Milch on Sat 15th May 2010 10:11 in reply to "Why?"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

Why use a default that Grub can't understand?

You make it sound as if that's set in stone. Both are FOSS. Grub2 can be modified to understand Btrfs.
The more important question is: Are Canonical for a change willing to do this by themselves?

Given Canonical's track record, I guess they're waiting for Red Hat to do this in time for them (which already doesn't work out for the Nouveau 3D drivers, because Fedora 14 will be released 1 month after Ubuntu 10.10 and adopting a driver that's even beta by Fedora's bleeding edge standards is not something Canonical will do).

That said, I'm hoping that I get positively surprised by Canonical, though my hopes for that aren't high.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Why?
by shotsman on Sat 15th May 2010 14:45 in reply to "RE: Why?"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Yeah right.
When did Ubuntu start using Grub 2?
When did Fedora start using Grub 2?
F12 certainly does not.
From a recent LUG problem report, it appears that 9.10 does and it appears that quote a lot of people are really having fun (not) with it.

IMHO (Which might be wrong) it seems that Canonical are a little more 'gun-ho' with stuff that is not quite ready for 'prime time' so to speak than Fedora. Given the higher usage of Ubuntu, I'm not convinced that this is all together a good thing.

I'm hoping the F13 is pretty stable as my guess is that a lot of it will be used in RHEL 6 later this year.
Just my 2p worth on the subject.

Reply Parent Score: 4