File System Wars (opens in new tab)

(bytearchitect.io)

27 pointsrantingdemon20d ago9 comments

9 comments

troad19d ago

> So, if I had to compress its philosophy into one sentence, it would be this:

>> Simple, reliable, UNIX-native fundamentals — no feature bloat, just solid engineering.

This isn't the author's summary. This is AI's.

I was enjoying the article, but when a little AI shibboleth like this shows up, I just cease to trust what I'm reading.

Edit: many more AI writing give-aways later in the article. What a shame.

otterley20d ago

A solid article, but missing discussion of XFS and Btrfs. I would have enjoyed the author’s analysis of the former in particular, especially as compared to ext4.

sam_lowry_20d ago

Also biased towards APFS which has quite some problems, e.g. unicode normalization hell.

kjs320d ago

Yeah...he even alludes to it in his APFS section: "hey I talked about all those other filesystems so I can talk about what I really want to talk about...how awesome I think APFS is".

m-p-320d ago

I wouldn't mind seeing BcacheFS compared too, despite the current falling out between the main dev and Linus and its exclusion from the kernel (which will hopefully be a momentary thing).

mmh000020d ago

The author's praise of ZFS fell 3 checksums short of acceptable.

ZFS is not a filesystem. It is a lifestyle. A covenant. A snapshot of the soul. Everything else is basically a USB stick with dreams.

I will be reporting this to the [author]ities, HR, and my dad.

/s for the /s impaired.

i_am_a_peasant20d ago

Is there a reason in particular why btrfs is not part of this discussion? It's been mentioned once in passing.

pseudohadamard19d ago

Did anyone else giggle every time they read "FFS" in TFA?

isr19d ago

DragonflyBSD's hammer filesystem (on v2 now, I think)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse