Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fedora proposing to remove X11 Gnome
Date: Sun, 4 May 2025 13:38:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <slrn101eree.ti9.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>
References: <oG5OP.1820195$BrX.647879@fx12.iad>
 <slrn100pc7f.4e7.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>
 <thep0k1b5pb11jcp73kr5gjqvl45oeif77@4ax.com>
 <slrn100pf9j.5dh.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>
 <gpcs0kdouuo45fjagkfuk37krrjof4rk8i@4ax.com>
 <slrn100uqg1.ju6.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> <vuper1$pu5b$12@dont-email.me>
 <364QP.125792$oJg.4439@fx17.iad> <slrn1011nb7.46v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>
 <ZW5QP.125793$oJg.79971@fx17.iad>
 <slrn1013uil.1aev.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>
 <hmpQP.125857$0qs5.26756@fx07.iad>
 <slrn10170g7.2qk.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> <0OSQP.28898$AoB5.17918@fx09.iad>
 <m7ih82Fdhc7U4@mid.individual.net> <avVQP.28969$quzb.24237@fx11.iad>
 <m7jbd4Fi49mU1@mid.individual.net> <my3RP.5$LiG1.1@fx16.iad>
 <m7kngpFouscU1@mid.individual.net> <cBcRP.21790$J0J2.5159@fx18.iad>
 <slrn101antt.3om.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> <M%eRP.2$RXsc.0@fx36.iad>
 <slrn101bt81.6df.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> <iVoRP.39616$eDv2.38030@fx17.iad>
 <slrn101ee4o.be1.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> <Z_IRP.308$mVWd.206@fx44.iad>
Injection-Date: Sun, 04 May 2025 15:38:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="61e26986d27a70d5df4ab3a5cf9e9bec";
	logging-data="2192322"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18akKfWTKtviVE5RjkTSOvM6+yizkIEFw4="
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RGwWHuTmubQh8tLWQbqsSeg31EI=
Bytes: 6038

On 2025-05-04, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-05-04 05:51, Borax Man wrote:
>> On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-05-03 06:50, Borax Man wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-05-02 20:13, Borax Man wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-05-02 16:16, rbowman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every
>>>>>>>>> publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything
>>>>>>>>> else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its
>>>>>>>>> worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot
>>>>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some
>>>>>>>> operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as
>>>>>>>> was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a
>>>>>>>> while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3
>>>>>>>> rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety
>>>>>>>> ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to
>>>>>>>> name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress
>>>>>>>> his murderous impulses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't recall what made me want to try ReiserFS but I believe it was
>>>>>>> the journaling function. As a user, you don't really see any of the
>>>>>>> benefits, but at the time I had no idea that it wasn't a new feature at
>>>>>>> all. I was completely unaware that NTFS already had it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was apparently much better when there were lots of small files, but
>>>>>> also a bit more prone to corruption.  ext3 has been rock solid for me,
>>>>>> NEVER failed me, and the point of a filesystem is to store my files
>>>>>> reliably.  Most of the time, you won't notice a performance difference
>>>>>> if you're just a regular desktop/laptop user.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I can only hope that btrfs is an excellent filesystem for the long
>>>>> term because that's what I chose. Just to be safe, I set it up for
>>>>> snapshots, but I can't imagine it corrupting my data the way that
>>>>> Windows managed to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've used it for storage partitions, and on my wifes laptops.  So far
>>>> its been pretty good, and I've been using it for years now.
>>>>
>>>> It has a bad repuation, but my personal experience is good.  I didn't
>>>> use it on this laptop, mostly because I wasn't going to use the
>>>> features, needed something basic.  Maybe I'll convert this laptop to
>>>> BTRFS.
>>>
>>> I'm always wary of converting one filesystem to another. It just gives
>>> me the impression that things are very likely to break. I'm just hoping
>>> that I'm not wrong about btrfs and that despite its reputation with
>>> some, it's as rock-solid as I've been led to believe. If it isn't, I'll
>>> just reinstall and use ext4.
>>>
>> 
>> Don't bother unless you've got a good reason to use it.  It's good, yes.
>> The snapshots are useful, but so are backups.  It does introduce some
>> new administrative things you have to take care of.
>> 
>> I use it on volumes where I specifically required snapshots, and needed
>> checksumming.  It's good, but I would still recommend EXT4 for
>> situations where BTRFS's additional features are not specifically
>> required.
>
> I can't say that I've ever had problems with ext4, but I also can't say 
> that I've ever had trouble with btrfs either. If I end up keeping it for 
> a long time on this laptop, I'll be able to form a, educated opinion 
> about how reliable btrfs is. I imagine that I might lose data here or 
> other, but I doubt it will ever be as bad as NTFS.
>

Just backup.  BTRFS didn't have a good FSCK tool when I needed it (it
ended up making a dogs breakfast of the filesystem, to correct one error
so minor that it had almost no effect at all on the usage of the drive).