On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Joerg Reisenweber -
reisenweber@???
<devuan.kn.d76efe93d7.reisenweber#web.de@???> wrote:
> From
> *"root fs: any you like, even MSDOS (with some limitations)" *
> to an undiscussed unsolicited
> *"root fs: btrfs mandatory"*
> is *not* the kind of "progress" I want to see happen, ever.

The interesting properties are actually pretty independent of the
filesystem used: As long as you can mount something to show up in some
other directory you are fine.

Considering that the blog post is all about putting an idea up for
discussion I really do not see how that can be undiscussed and
unsolicited. How should you get a discussion started on the internet?

> It trades in quite a set of nice properties for a few new properties percieved
> "superior" by a small set of developers who think they're the ones to decide
> (or "the universe spins around them" as some guy said) and were allowed to
> ignore the notion of significant parts of their users and developer peers.

People put ideas up for discussion on the internet. If that bothers
you so much you might want to spend your time elsewhere.

> Odds are those properties they're sacrificing are actually urgently needed by
> quite a number of installations, and probably the new featureset could as well
> get achived *without* *sacrificing* backward compatibility.

Then those people should not implement the idea and move on with their
lives, or they can adapt it to their needs -- if they care.

The only part somewhat limited to btrfs is sending a snapshot over the
network, and even that could be done in a number of different ways.
The rest is just about splitting up a distribution into a set of files
with similar properties and how to combine those sets again with a
couple of simple mounts. No magic whatsoever.

> For your usecase: btrfs is around already, snapper is too, who needs those
> massive changes in packaging of a distro and file hierarchy?

Snapper is way more complex than a couple of static mounts. I like
simple solutions.

There is no change in packaging of a distro. The file hierarchy is not
really changed either, provided you do not buy into the notion that
some binaries are more special than others and need to be stored in
their own special place. And even that can be fixed with a couple of
symlinks on the user side.

BR,
Karl