81–90 of 352 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re: Mozilla, they are aware, and there are a couple of about:config flags to enable text reflow on page load and on tap-to-zoom, but they're disabled by default "due to a number of reasons (mainly performance)".
I looked for them but maybe they don't have obvious names. I found that I set browser.ui.zoom.force-user-scalable to true, it defaults to false. Do you remember their names? Thanks.
It's OT but how many people actually use RHEL? Or CentOS (more likely). I'm not a fan of systemd, but have really loathed CentOS/RHEL compared to Debian/* for years.
A majority of Telcos, Banking, Military, Stock Exchanges, Medical and large commercial enterprises
Why?
Because when a system starts having issues at 4am dealing with x amount of transactions per second and the shit is going to hit the fan, they want top class support on hand and not to be awaiting on someone replying on a irc channel / mailing list.
I personally am an Arch user on my home machine and work laptop, yet servers that run commercial workloads and have SLAs tied to them will always run RHEL for the reasons above.
It's OT but how many people actually use RHEL? Or CentOS (more likely). I'm not a fan of systemd, but have really loathed CentOS/RHEL compared to Debian/* for years.
As a general rule if the end customer was finance/bank their Linux flavor was RedHat (someone to yell at when it broke). Other tech companies / web types it was Ubuntu. This was my experience in over 4 startups where these were are end customers. Your mileage may vary.
I've never met an individual (not corporate server) or end-user (desktop) running RHEL though.
Back to topic, I've been following Btrfs... At one point it seemed destined to become the default for most Linux systems, but I'm not sure where it is headed now.
I am as happy as anyone that XFS is finally getting the position of honor it deserves on enterprise Linux (something like 15 years later than it should have, grumble grumble) but it doesn't really take the place of what btrfs was trying to do. Only ZFS is in a position to do that. I wonder if there are any plans for supporting the native port on RHEL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook, Fujitsu and SUSE all contribute to btrfs and it is still being actively developed (it's the default filesystem for SUSE Linux Enterprise). Red Hat stopped contributing a while ago since most of their btrfs developers moved to Facebook. "Done for the long-term" is a major overstatement IMO.
Well, for those of us that have been waiting on btrfs for a frigging decade I get the feeling that it is never going to be ready. If I wait another decade, will btrfs have matured? Will there be ANY half-modern filesystem for linux? I'm not convinced. Currently bcachefs seems more appealing but well, long way to go there as well.
I am as happy as anyone that XFS is finally getting the position of honor it deserves on enterprise Linux (something like 15 years later than it should have, grumble grumble) but it doesn't really take the place of what btrfs was trying to do. Only ZFS is in a position to do that. I wonder if there are any plans for supporting the native port on RHEL.
I have one machine running XFS but if that one is representative then I won't be installing XFS anywhere else and would happily discourage others from using it. It is terribly slow when doing some fairly common operations when you have a large number of small files.
XFS has outperformed EXT4 in almost all "high" use-cases in my experience and testing: Large files (500GB~) or many small files (128k files * 2,400,000 or so). EXT4 under those loads is comically bad.
BTRFS is also terrible at this, only XFS and ZFS are good at handling it.
I am as happy as anyone that XFS is finally getting the position of honor it deserves on enterprise Linux (something like 15 years later than it should have, grumble grumble) but it doesn't really take the place of what btrfs was trying to do. Only ZFS is in a position to do that. I wonder if there are any plans for supporting the native port on RHEL.
Redhat hasn't been on the best of terms with Oracle, so I suspect that they want to stay clear of ZFS. It does however leave Redhat without a more modern feature rich filesystem. Perhaps Redhat could help to develop snapshots on XFS. It's not the only feature XFS is missing, but it's a start.
The only connection Oracle has to ZFS on Linux is ownership of some patents that the license allows you to use, their reluctance is based on distribution issues between the GPL and CDDL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Perhaps Redhat could help to develop snapshots on XFS. It's not the only feature XFS is missing, but it's a start. Upstream has been working on adding more btrfs-like features to XFS, but I believe that RHEL encourages using devicemapper snapshots (which you then format with XFS).
> Upstream has been working on adding more btrfs-like features to XFS, but I believe that RHEL encourages using devicemapper snapshots (which you then format with XFS). Exactly, mountable and mergable snapshots have been supported by a LVM/devicemapper stack for a long time.
More importantly Red Hat has deprecated FCoE in RHEL, which is big news, because at a previous $JOB they went all in on FCoE because it was supposed to be the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook, Fujitsu and SUSE all contribute to btrfs and it is still being actively developed (it's the default filesystem for SUSE Linux Enterprise). Red Hat stopped contributing a while ago since most of their btrfs developers moved to Facebook. "Done for the long-term" is a major overstatement IMO.
Well, for those of us that have been waiting on btrfs for a frigging decade I get the feeling that it is never going to be ready. If I wait another decade, will btrfs have matured? Will there be ANY half-modern filesystem for linux? I'm not convinced. Currently bcachefs seems more appealing but well, long way to go there as well.