On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Charles Curley <[email protected]> wrote: >> You may still lose data, but with a decent filesystem, it will not >> come back on in a scrambled state despite pulling the power on it. >> One of the reasons I wish tux3 will come to fruition, is that it's not >> even journalled, yet it provides the same benefit--w/o having to play >> any logs back at all--it's just *there*, and so's a completely >> consistent version of the data. Very clever. > > Sounds interesting. Unfortunately it looks only slightly more alive > than a lawyer's ethics. Sigh. >
I emailed one of the devs recently, both of them are "busy with life" atm. Understandable. I think the biggest problem, is there is no published argument listing the compelling reasons for developing tux3 vs btrfs. Hard to win devs to a project if there's no businesses interested in it. It winds up relegated to hobbyland. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
