this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024

8 points (68.2% liked)

Linux

8159 readers

83 users here now

Welcome to c/linux!

Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!

Rules:

Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
No NSFW adult content
Follow general lemmy guidelines.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Btrfs should've been Wayland (self.linux)

submitted 14 hours ago by possiblylinux127 to c/[email protected]

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I think the problem with btrfs is that it entered the spotlight way to early. With Wayland there was time to work on a lot of the kinks before everyone started seriously switching.

On btrfs a bunch of people switched blindly and then lost data. This caused many to have a bad impression of btrfs. These days it is significantly better but because there was so much fear there is less attention paid to it and it is less widely used.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (19 children)

tbh the situation with Wayland was not too different, and wouldn't have been better. Compared to Wayland, brtfs dodged a bullet. Overhyped, oversold, overcrowdsourced, literally years behind the system it was supposed to "replace" when it was thrown into production. To this day, wayland can't even complete a full desktop session login on my machine.

So, if you ask me, btrfs should *definitively not * have been Wayland! Can you imagine if btrfs had launched on Fedora, and then you formatted your partition as btrfs to install Linux, but the installer could not install into it? "brtfs reports a writer is not available", says the installer. You go to the forums to ask what's going on, why the brtfs does not work. The devs of brtfs respond with "oh it's just a protocol; everyone who wants to write files into our new partition format have to implement a writer themselves".

load more comments (19 replies)

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Stop spreading disinformation (again). Wayland was a fucking mess and caused countless of issues, especially in a lot of "edge cases". Meanwhile, dumbos were spreading lies about how it runs perfect and without issues while I kept switching back to X after merely minutes to hours whenever I tried to use Wayland again. It's just bullshit that never was grounded in reality. Even now there's games & applications who don't run with Wayland, and likely never will since they have zero incentive to do so or aren't even in active development anymore and that stupid X11 bridge still is required to run in the background for a lot of them.

[–] possiblylinux127 1 points 7 minutes ago

Don't use Wayland I guess

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 minutes ago* (last edited 42 seconds ago)

I think you might be missing the part where wayland WAS running perfectly for them. It still does for me. I am actively and happily using Wayland and everything for me works. XWayland is a fantastic stopgap for now.

Wine is (slowly) getting a native Wayland port, which will translate to Proton eventually.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (3 children)

Both Fedora and openSUSE default to Btrfs. That's all the praise it needs really.

With Bcachefs still being relatively immature and the situation surrounding (Open)ZFS unchanged, Btrfs is the only CoW-viable option we got. So people will definitely find it, if they need it. Which is where the actual issue is; why would someone for which ext4 has worked splendidly so far, even consider switching? It's the age-old discussion in which peeps simply like to stick to what already works.

Tbh, if only Debian would default to Btrfs, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

what ZFS situation?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I'll keep it brief. But it comes down to the fact that, out of the more popular distros, it's only officially supported on Ubuntu.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 minutes ago

https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Getting%20Started/index.html

i've found to work without issue on Fedora, Arch and Ubuntu so maybe it's supported very well

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

@lancalot @possiblylinux127 eh, also Garuda defaults to BTRFS, EOS does not default to BTRFS, but it has an option on their Calamares

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I wanted to stick to (what I'd refer to as) OG distros; so independent distros that have kept their relevance over a long period of time.

But you're correct, Garuda Linux and others default to Btrfs as well. At this point, I'd argue it's the most sensible option if snapshot functionality is desired from Snapper/Timeshift.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

@lancalot none of the "main" distros default to BTRFS, just "derivatives" default to BTRFS, Garuda is based on Arch, so it's normal that it's one of the rising new distros, Garuda rose because gaming on Linux received a huge boost from sources like Valve so I doubt that it (Garuda) will deviate from its path with time, plus, they provide multiple flavors for multiple purposes, gaming requires stability & sometimes a rollback mechanism, that's where BTRFS shine, not so much stability BTW

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

none of the “main” distros default to BTRFS, just “derivatives” default to BTRFS

So you don't regard Fedora (or openSUSE) as "main" distro?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

@lancalot OpenSUSE is based on SUSE (created in 1994)
Fedora was developed as a continuation of RHEL
Maybe "main" is not well appropriate, I wanted to say "distros that have no precedence & not based on anything", for example, 0.12 was a "main" distro, MCC Interim Linux was a "derivative" distro

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I suppose we differ in our definitions. Which is absolutely fine, to be honest*.

For completeness' sake, IMO it's basically the intersection of Major Distributions and Independent Distributions. Which happens to consist of Arch, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, openSUSE and Slackware.

Out of these, Arch and Gentoo don't have defaults, but their documentation uses ext4 most frequently for examples. For the remaining four, Fedora and openSUSE default to Btrfs. While Debian and Slackware default to ext4.

In all fairness, one might argue that Distrowatch's list of major distros is arbitrary. Therefore, we could refine what's found above by including actually data. For this, I'll use Boiling Steam's usage chart based on ProtonDB's data. This ain't perfect either, but it's the best I can do. Here, we notice how both Gentoo and Slackware are not represented. Furthermore, NixOS poses as a candidate instead. For which, we find that (if anything) ext4 is the default. Regardless, it doesn't actually impact the earlier outcome:

Arch (and Gentoo) don't have defaults
Debian(, Slackware and NixOS) default to ext4
Fedora and openSUSE default to Btrfs

Anyhow, what are the main distros according to you? Please offer an exhaustive list, please. Thanks in advance!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

@lancalot the "main" that are alive today are (like on this graph) https://rreinold.github.io/explore-linux/ :Debian, Slackware, RHEL, Gentoo, Arch & android
These are only the alive ones, however, I couldn't find any info about Nix OS so it remains on the maybe category cause I tried it and could not find any hint to the past

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I suppose that's a fair assessment. Thanks for the clarification!

However, I do give precedence over their current situations.

So, if e.g. Arch would continue to exist, but ultimately became the downstream/derivative of another distro, then I would stop regarding it as 'main'. Which one may argue happened between RHEL and Fedora.
Similarly, if a derivative starts building their own repos and becomes entirely independent from the distro they were originally derived from, then I'd stop regarding them as a derivative. Instead I'd acknowledge them as an independent distro. Like how openSUSE ultimately is derived from Slackware, but they're hardly comparable today.

Regarding NixOS, it and other independent distros are absent in the link you provided. NixOS is literally its own thing and also old; older than Ubuntu and Android for example. So, if anything, it did deserve a mention. Though, I suppose the maker of that website didn't think it was relevant enough to be included over three years ago. NixOS' popularity has thankfully exploded in the mean time, though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

@lancalot I understand the list I provided is not necessarily complete, because Void & Solus are also independent, however, for them to be "main", they should have "derivatives", I don't claim that I have a big Linux experience, but I tried & documented myself about the distros on the list, & can confirm that they are "main", I also tried Nix OS, the use of 1 config file is refreshing, however that ease comes at the cost of some flexibility, installing Steam there is too complicated for me

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

however, for them to be “main”, they should have “derivatives”,

Got you. Aight. I suppose that does disqualify NixOS. Though, to be fair, Guix System is heavily inspired from NixOS.

I also tried Nix OS, the use of 1 config file is refreshing, however that ease comes at the cost of some flexibility, installing Steam there is too complicated for me

Hehe 😜. Yeah, the paradigm shift associated with NixOS isn't one that's overcome in one sitting. But it's cool to hear that you've tested it for yourself.

Anyhow, this was a cool interaction. Thank you for offering your insights! Wish you, my akhi in (at least) humanity, a lovely day!

[–] possiblylinux127 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You are welcome to start a movement to get Debian to switch. You will be swimming up stream but you are welcome to try. Debian has been the same for decades and people like that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You didn't get my point. Btrfs is one OG distro removed from being THE standard. It's doing a lot better than you're making it out to be.

It's not like Btrfs is dunking on all other file systems and Debian is being unreasonable by defaulting to ext4. Instead, Btrfs wins some of its battles and loses others. It's pretty competent overall, but ext4 (and other competing file systems) have their respective merits.

Thankfully, we got competing standards that are well-tested. We should celebrate this diversity instead of advocating for monocultures.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments