From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 20692 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2021 09:21:39 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 30 Aug 2021 09:21:39 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5A3E59D53A; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 19:21:36 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3B079D52C; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 19:20:55 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=me.com header.i=@me.com header.b="wOLRtqxr"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id B85DB9D52C; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 19:20:51 +1000 (AEST) X-Greylist: delayed 389 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at minnie.tuhs.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 19:20:47 AEST Received: from st43p00im-ztbu10063601.me.com (st43p00im-ztbu10063601.me.com [17.58.63.174]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DB979D52B for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 19:20:47 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=me.com; s=1a1hai; t=1630314857; bh=qMARK/86b3O+Xo740/2NRwMh362GUyxv2/ZoPNfBTyM=; h=Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=wOLRtqxraIpqWVN2jnaGT30rOJRP5mAiQOPTfxxS1QWvi8FsImBCPPCsc9a0hbaRz nE/umOZzaHwKDVC8nBBkJkf35KexyW8GLyIMJSX53TLKpLUUHJXkb+W0zb4pVhkgBL podrRG5jIKNHipafsuRNhOsbdMI0iAAQxdrvSTCqGF36SgbI6/ap0Q3LEw3g01Kmzb 4Ue0qY5azYrqhbLBQgkcmFUEKafySjTzfnAPVl8HV+72K1CPncWDKnVcbS5fI5NeP4 0u5rkqdByuiJhm6MHg/fbmr/X2aPKKKkRQOEFxNNaVCulwHvWE4jktivRius9u3tga rZKd5czFrfidw== Received: from [192.168.173.14] (genepool-fw.bio.ed.ac.uk [129.215.170.250]) by st43p00im-ztbu10063601.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A2C770063C for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 09:14:16 +0000 (UTC) To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org References: <202108292212.17TMCGow1448973@darkstar.fourwinds.com> Message-ID: <1e976247-3642-8f84-a429-167e8b640877@me.com> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 10:14:15 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------5FC384B445FEC406A661FA84" Content-Language: en-US X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: =?UTF-8?Q?vendor=3Dfsecure_engine=3D1.1.170-22c6f66c430a71ce266a39bfe25bc?= =?UTF-8?Q?2903e8d5c8f:6.0.391,18.0.790,17.0.607.475.0000000_definitions?= =?UTF-8?Q?=3D2021-08-30=5F02:2021-08-27=5F01,2021-08-30=5F02,2020-04-07?= =?UTF-8?Q?=5F01_signatures=3D0?= X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=407 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2108300069 Subject: Re: [TUHS] Is it time to resurrect the original dsw (delete with switches)? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: John Dow via TUHS Reply-To: John Dow Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------5FC384B445FEC406A661FA84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 30/08/2021 00:09, Henry Bent wrote: > On Sun, 29 Aug 2021 at 18:13, Jon Steinhart > wrote: > > I recently upgraded my machines to fc34.  I just did a stock > uncomplicated installation using the defaults and it failed miserably. > > Fc34 uses btrfs as the default filesystem so I thought that I'd > give it > a try. > > > ... cut out a lot about how no sane person would want to use btrfs ... > > > Or, as Saturday Night Live might put it:  And now, linux, starring the > not ready for prime time filesystem.  Seems like something that's been > under development for around 15 years should be in better shape. > > > To my way of thinking this isn't a Linux problem, or even a btrfs > problem, it's a Fedora problem.  They're the ones who decided to > switch their default filesystem to something that clearly isn't ready > for prime time. This. Even the Arch wiki makes it clear that btrfs isn't ready for prime time. It's still under very heavy development - not really something you want for a filesystem, particularly one storing a large amount of critical data. John --------------5FC384B445FEC406A661FA84 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 30/08/2021 00:09, Henry Bent wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2021 at 18:13, Jon Steinhart <jon@fourwinds.com> wrote:
I recently upgraded my machines to fc34.  I just did a stock
uncomplicated installation using the defaults and it failed miserably.

Fc34 uses btrfs as the default filesystem so I thought that I'd give it
a try.

... cut out a lot about how no sane person would want to use btrfs ...

Or, as Saturday Night Live might put it:  And now, linux, starring the
not ready for prime time filesystem.  Seems like something that's been
under development for around 15 years should be in better shape.

To my way of thinking this isn't a Linux problem, or even a btrfs problem, it's a Fedora problem.  They're the ones who decided to switch their default filesystem to something that clearly isn't ready for prime time.

This. Even the Arch wiki makes it clear that btrfs isn't ready for prime time. It's still under very heavy development - not really something you want for a filesystem, particularly one storing a large amount of critical data.


John

--------------5FC384B445FEC406A661FA84--