> 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.
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.
Also biased towards APFS which has quite some problems, e.g. unicode normalization hell.
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".
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).
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.
Is there a reason in particular why btrfs is not part of this discussion? It's been mentioned once in passing.
DragonflyBSD's hammer filesystem (on v2 now, I think)
Did anyone else giggle every time they read "FFS" in TFA?