Re: Fedora proposing to remove X11 Gnome

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.