Things have certainly changed, (for better or worse, I'm not sure), since the 1.3.X days when a development kernel was generally still pretty stable.
> This is a development kernel, the rules for what goes in should be far
> more open than the stable series. IMHO both JFS (AIX) and XFS (IRIX)
> should be in, because they will not be solid until users actually use
> them, and better that be in a development kernel.
Totally agreed. I was talking about the stable kernel.
> > EXT2 is a very capable filesystem, and has *years* of proven
> > reliability. That's why I'm not going to switch away from it for
> > critical work any time soon.
>
> One might note that both JFS and XFS have been around since xiafs was the
> Linux f/s of choice.
Not for Linux, though - I'm talking about years of Linux stability.
> It's all relative. If you want old and grotty, go back to minix f/s.
That's why I qualified my above comment with 'is a very capable filesystem' :-).
I know what you mean, but I was just pointing out that EXT-2 balances proven reliability in the stable kernel, features, and performance VERY well, infact what other OS family can make that claim? BSD is the only one I can think of. Oh, sure FAT has been around forever, but it's somewhat lacking in the features department.
John.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/