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.

  • lancalot@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    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.

      • lancalot@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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.

      • lancalot@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

      • lancalot@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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.

        • Ketata Mohamed@mastodon.tn
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          @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

          • lancalot@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

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

            So you don’t regard Fedora (or openSUSE) as “main” distro?

            • Ketata Mohamed@mastodon.tn
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              @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

              • lancalot@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 hours ago

                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!

                  • lancalot@discuss.online
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 hour ago

                    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.