On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 05:04 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 05:01 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Dang, I'm half-asleep. Do-over ... Say something like ...
Fedora Core, more than most other Linux distributions, requires the filesystem have extensive kernel/application support. Ext2/Ext3 have a long history on all Linux distributions, so kernel and application support is commonly implemented. This includes kernel NFS services, quotas and Extended Attributes (EAs) for things such as Access Control Lists (ACLs) and Mandatory Access Controls (MACs) like SELinux.
ReiserFS is not working on supporting many of these features, which is a show-stopper, and has a long history if compatibility issues with traditional services Fedora Core has been used for. JFS is still missing many of these components, and suffers from the same compatibility history as ReiserFS. While XFS does have extensive support, and SGI has produced releases of XFS for prior Red Hat kernels, Fedora Core has not tested XFS extensive, and there are many known issues with XFS in the Linux kernel (outside of SGI's control).
Actually, I just re-read that and it's too subjective and, worse yet, makes statements on behalf of other entities (which we obviously can't do).
As has already been said, it may not need much detail. The important points are probably that ReiserFS doesn't yet support key features x, y and z, and XFS isn't suited or reliable for standard setups.
I tagged that myth on after an IRC discussion about unreasonable user requests - people semi-regularly claim that Fedora should support/default to ReiserFS (as SUSE does, I think) because it's supposedly faster or cleverer or whatever, and that XFS is l33t, so it should be a standard installation option.