Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Dale <[email protected]> wrote: >> Rich Freeman wrote: >>> If there were some kind of trade-off I'd see the argument, but the >>> worst case here is just that they may or may not need it. For >>> something with some benefit and almost no drawback that seems like a >>> wrong reason to avoid LVM. >>> >> Sure, it may help a very tiny percentage of people but I suspect it will >> be tiny. Mostly, for the same reasons I pointed out in another reply on >> this thread. >> > IMO the important question isn't how many it helps, but how many it hurts. > > If it helps a tiny number, and it hurts none, then it is a worthwhile default. >
That wasn't the point tho. I'm sure a init thingy helps some small number of people but it also hurts some because they have to add one more layer that can fail. I've had init thingys fail on me several times with different distros. If one is not going to use LVM properly, why install it by default and risk a upgrade causing a problem and the lose of data? I use LVM here. I have two 3TBs drives for my /home directory. Before that, I didn't use LVM. Those of us who knows what it is and uses it are not that large a percentage of people. The point is, one shouldn't add LVM to a system when the user will never use it or worse yet, even know what it is or what it is for. It just adds one more thing that can cause problems. Dale :-) :-)
