Why is the default fs only ext4 or btrfs?

[ricklinux]

Then cause more issues?

[pebcak]

Yeah…done, once and for all!
No messing around with partitions anymore

[joekamprad]

@ricklinux

Then cause more issues?

could be that or we just follow the arch way by having a very complicate question to answer, before you can choose “Advanced” ?

[ricklinux]

Must RTFM first?

[pebcak]

@joekamprad

having a very complicate question to answer, before you can choose “Advanced” ?

Something not already covered by ArchWiki?

[dalto]

I think this would be great!

The beginner option doesn’t even need to offer a DE selection. It can just install sway.

Wait…does that make sense?

Yes. I am pretty sure it does.

[ricklinux]

I think maybe we could have an advanced flow chart like this based on partition schemes.

[joekamprad]

@dalto

Yes. I am pretty sure it does.

Yes we go for that… simplify the installer no need to maintain calamares anymore, all done by unpacking it:

[joekamprad]

But back on topic?
XFS as an option?

[freebird54]

You have my thoughts already - it is pretty easy to arrange for yourself if you want it - just pre-partition and format and then manual setup in Calamares. It is a good filesystem, no doubt, but there can be some issues (especially if not grub booting) that might lead to ‘complications’. I think we all should continue Endeavour as we see fit!

@dalto

Not if you use the dkms modules.

Oh - I thought that came under the heading of ‘kernel mangling’ - if somewhat easier to accomplish And it can be tricky to keep it updated correctly too…

[Shjim]

thought eos give help hand for new arch usr or simple fast for xp usr. where it stop if keep add thing that xp usr want !! . ext4 + btrfs think good middle ground .

Personally i say " stay to EOS core values " it work great so far

[s4ndm4n]

I agree with what @Shjim said. Just keep it as it is. If an advanced user really wants another file system they can use manual partitioning. Adding another filesystem would make things a bit complicated for the backend.

Also, apart from someone explicitly familiar with another file system I hardly believe a normal user would go beyond ext4 and btrfs. For the normal user, we have offered the simple solution of auto partitioning and for the advanced user there’s the manual path so why do we need to reinvent the wheel again? it’s kind of pointless don’t you think?

[ricklinux]

I like xfs but I’m not sure what the advantage would be having it as the root file system over btrfs or ext4 for most users?

[dalto]

@s4ndm4n

Adding another filesystem would make things a bit complicated for the backend.

Also, apart from someone explicitly familiar with another file system I hardly believe a normal user would go beyond ext4 and btrfs. For the normal user, we have offered the simple solution of auto partitioning and for the advanced user there’s the manual path so why do we need to reinvent the wheel again? it’s kind of pointless don’t you think?

I just to be clear that we are talking about adding the text “xfs” to a single config file. It isn’t any real work and it doesn’t make the installation more complicated.

The question is does it make it harder for the end user?

I tend to think it doesn’t but that is just me.

@ricklinux

what the advantage would be having it as the root file system over btrfs or ext4 for most users?

This article provides a pretty good breakdown between the 2:

How to Choose Your Red Hat Enterprise Linux File System - Red Hat Customer...

[otherbarry]

@dalto

I tend to think it doesn’t but that is just me.

This.

XFS is a very stable mainstream file system, one of the most used on the planet, it deserves inclusion along with ext4 and btrfs.

[ricklinux]

I think xfs is great if you have the system that can take advantage of it’s capabilities. But for most home users i don’t think it really matters much.

[Kresimir]

I don’t know, but my gut says maybe.

[s4ndm4n]

@dalto

I just to be clear that we are talking about adding the text “xfs” to a single config file. It isn’t any real work and it doesn’t make the installation more complicated.

If it’s that simple then why wasn’t the option was not there in the installer earlier to this debate? And from the article, many features the file system provides are geared towards enterprise-level implementations. Any user who is willing to use XFS file system would be capable of using the manual partitioner.

And how many of the normal users would use it? no one requested it until today and our distro caters towards the home users. Anyway, this is my two cents, I leave it up to the higher powers to decide.

[dalto]

@s4ndm4n

If it’s that simple then why wasn’t the option was not there in the installer earlier to this debate?

We would have to ask @joekamprad that but perhaps because it had never been requested?

@s4ndm4n

Any user who is willing to use XFS file system would be capable of using the manual partitioner.

I am capable of using manual partitioning and I use “Erase Disk” most of the time.

@s4ndm4n

no one requested it until today and our distro caters towards the home users.

Home users can use xfs too.

That being said, I don’t feel super strongly about it either way. I was just trying to make sure everyone understood that this wasn’t some fundamental change. The installer already supports it, we just need to enable it if we want to do so.

[eznix]

For whatever good it does, here is my take. Once you add any choice, i.e. ext4 or btrfs, adding one more choice does not make the process any more complicated. Any choice is more complicated than no choice, so go ahead and add xfs as a choice. I might just do the same for my own Ezarcher.