Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Ubuntu Data Storage Linux News

Btrfs Could Be the Default File System In Ubuntu Meerkat 269

An anonymous reader writes "The EXT family of file systems (ext2, ext3, ext4) have ruled many Linux distributions for a long time, and Ubuntu has been no exception. But things may no longer be the same for Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat. Canonical's Scott James Remnant said in a blog post that plans are on for doing work to have btrfs as an installation option, and that the possibility of making it the default file system in Ubuntu 10.10 has not been ruled out."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Btrfs Could Be the Default File System In Ubuntu Meerkat

Comments Filter:
  • Re:please... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MrHanky (141717) on Friday May 14, 2010 @04:53PM (#32213702) Homepage Journal

    Are you certain that it's due to FS corruption? I've had ext4 fail to boot due to silly errors like the last write being one hour into the future (some kind of time zone confusion), but no corruption at all. I ask only because most people seem incapable of reading an error message and just doing the /sbin/fsck.ext4 /dev/sdaX that it explicitly calls for.

  • Re:Ubuntu... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by EyelessFade (618151) on Friday May 14, 2010 @05:09PM (#32213876) Homepage

    You mean unstable, not ready for mainstream.

  • Re:please... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gbjbaanb (229885) on Friday May 14, 2010 @05:11PM (#32213912)

    regardless of why, I've never heard of that happen with an ext3 filesystem. Now imagine you're running a server, a trip to the datacentre to run fsck would be annoying.

  • Right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dnaumov (453672) on Friday May 14, 2010 @05:13PM (#32213938)
    This is a filesystem, where the developers keep finding major (including fatal) bugs basically every other week. If even the slightest idea of making it the default filesystem in a distribution scheduled for release in 6 months crosses your mind, seek professional help. Now.
  • Better Options (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sunderland56 (621843) on Friday May 14, 2010 @05:33PM (#32214164)
    How about either
    • Having no default, and presenting a list of options (with suitable help, detailing why each would be a good or a bad choice); or
    • Having an intelligent default, based on disk capacity, use (i.e. boot volume or not), and technology (magnetic versus solid state)
  • Re:Better Options (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Daengbo (523424) <daengbo&gmail,com> on Friday May 14, 2010 @07:17PM (#32215294) Homepage Journal

    Your second point is very good, but Ubuntu has always been about opinionated choices. When 4.10 came out, it was decided to forgo the normal Linux 5 CD installation's 10 text editors, four word processors, and three browsers (practically required in the early 2000s because some apps worked for some things and not for others) and instead install just one type of each application on one CD. In short, having no default totally goes against their mission.

    The installer always gives you the option to go advanced and choose your own partition setup and file systems.

  • Re:Ubuntu... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Requiem18th (742389) on Friday May 14, 2010 @08:05PM (#32215770)

    Ubuntu won't install some poorly tested alpha quality file system until the next LTS and viceversa, a filesystem can't make it into ubuntu unless its buggy enough to get into the LTS a week after feature freeze.

CChheecckk yyoouurr dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh..