n_K, on 18 July 2012 - 23:04, said:
The guy having problems removing his fedora partition - you need to boot from a livecd/usb and use gparted, right click on the partition and click 'unmount' if you can't delete it
SELinux - for most home users it isn't needed at all, if you're doing server work and whatnot though it's a VERY good idea to enable it (microsoft uses it on their *nix skype servers).
BTRFS is in theory stable now, it has an fsck tool called btrfsfsck NOTbtrfs.fsck so I symlinked it for my server install, haven't really tested it's speed in comparison to ext4 but it's reliable! Server's lost power on a few occasions and the VMs have just been shut off without powering down and they've always recovered fine.
'If for some strange reason you really really need wildly different lib versions for a specific application you can always chroot it, although that'd be a bit overkill'
That's useful for skype to prevent it sending data about your PC
Oh I know that under normal usage, you'd probably not find flaws in btrfs atm.
It HAS grown to be well... say an "adolescent" FS, but it's just not as mature as ZFS for example that has grown for so many many years now.
Time is ALWAYS a bonus for something to mature (if the development backs it up - letting it rot in a repo and not touching it obviously doesn't help anyone
Do I like btrfs? Heck yea!
Will I testdrive it? You bet so!
Will I use it for a file server for main storage? Atm, no.
It's the odd
cases, the "owww... how did this happen?!" cases, the cases that you even as a geek face for the first time, that you want to be in a system that has grown for many years -> to know the chances of your odd case being documented or self-fixing - "luxury", but sometimes very very handy for headless and home use (no highly paid maintenance on schedule) - are good!
That's why I'd still go with ZFS, although btrfs is a wet dream, it's so paranoia-friendly, I'm finally happy or... surprised with a FS again after ZFS.