• vividspecter
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    reiser4 was a promising filesystem (had transparent compression very early on) but reiser3 (reiserfs) didn’t really have anything significant over ext3/4 so abandoning it made sense. And reiser4 never made the kernel so it’s understandable that most never bothered with it, although I used it for a few years before btrfs became viable.

    • biscotty666@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      At the time the competition was against a nascent ext3, as I recall, against which reiserfs had significant advantages. Journaling wasn’t standard back then and wasn’t handled by ext2, so there was a lot of competition, and it wasn’t clear that ext3 would be the best solution.

      Now that I think about it ext3 wasn’t even a thing. And when it did come on line reiserfs already had a mature journaling system.

      • vividspecter
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        ext3 was definitely a thing by the time of the murder, but I was wrong in that ext4 wasn’t released yet by the time Hans Reiser was convicted.

        But if you meant when reiserfs was first released, that’s fair. They were both ahead of their time for sure.

        • biscotty666@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Reiserfs was the first journalling FS included in the Linux kernel. Ext3 didn’t make it in until 2001. So reiser was the only game in town for us and why we moved that way. By the time of the murder ext3 was mature so the switch away wasn’t a big deal.