>>whats the harm in supporting it?
>I'm no distro expert here, but my guess is that they all add up. There's loads of filesystems that distro developers *could* support, but choose not to.

Naaa, no harm at all mate, they could, period show me one downside, re: size on disk/kernel footprint/memory&cpu resources usages that would negate the possibility of not doing it by todays standards and you'll find none all i'm saying to them is "just switch the ****er on, will ya!?"

>>why do you have to belittle everything people say?
>I don't. Simply put, when picking apart people's posts is more convenient for me to do it, then that is what I will use to reply to them.

yeah i needed that, but i'm just sick of nobody paying attention in class, my mistake
I'll get used to it

>>i'm trying to make a decent contribution in order to become well liked
>I haven't seen very many people that become well-liked when they claim their opponent is a troll. Regardless, my goal is not to make you look bad, but to challenge your arguments. If my counter arguments are incorrect, feel free to correct me. Otherwise, don't complain.

neither have i but havn't seen anyone made to look good with posts that don't make sense either like THEY did with mepnoob, he's a 50 year old guy and believe he knows!
I hope he comes back

>we get statements like "Probably because FFS isn't very popular." - now
>a newb will look at that and assume openbsd is no good

You aren't making any sense. Is popularity the determining factor for whether something is "good" or not?

i think its a large factor, yes. plus i like to make sense so again yes, it IS sense, trust me, i never blow unless i know its what i said, which is why i love alex jones www.infowars.com

no, i personally think interoperability is key, which is why an open system is the only way to knit the world together. openbsd and linux work in harmony perfectly as far as i see and we shouldn't ignore theo's fantastic frontend network wise. i think it should be supported and more people use it on their gateways especially!
It's an important part of integrated integrity and therefore a physical demand for support!

>YOU made the claim, YOU back it up mate, I ain't your gopher!
I never said that you had to provide proof, I simply said at the bare minimum, you should at least let me know if a statement is incorrect, and without flaming.

why? i've seen nothing to disproove it, RTFM mate
and i'm saying you proove that its not with your replies instead of asking for information readily available on google.

I am well aware that the burden of truth lies on me for this one. Very well, I have attempted to find some statistics as to the popularity of the FFS filesystem. Since I couldn't find enough statistics via Google, I decided to use Google itself as a statistic and create a chart based on the number of search results from each filesystem. This is not a completely accurate chart; I am aware of that. But I think it can still give a pretty good picture of FFS compared to other filesystems. To remove any ambiguities between the filesystem and other meanings of the acronym, I decided to append "filesystem" to each search term.
its not a statistical issue , its a statistical fact that openbsd would be best served as far as , i for one am concerned (others may well run openbsd on their desktops), as a gateway/server system. if gateways are actively using it as mine, because i leave no system directly accessible and therefore essential IMHO. I remend everyone use openbsd on the front end of their systems/networks. behind it i feel better knowing there is an statically monitorable gate that simply does its job! Security is fundamental and OpenBSD CERTAINLY has a greater role in it, www.openbsd.org
whereas linux and windows are mainly in everyones sense development projects in the making. opening up a world of issues
It IS this important and I feel good about my whole point on this!

As you can see from the char below, the only filesystem which has a lower number of results than FFS is ext4. Given the fact that ext4 has only been a kernel option since 2.6.19, I'd have to say that FFS's popularity is fairly low.
if a building were run in that an openbsd gateway were running the network but stifled the interoperability of that system, then it surely would become like that. that doesn't make it right, that makes it worse, thats like saying linux is doing that to make sure they don't progress, when anyone with a god damn ounce of security sense knows they can't be beat and in the real world application of secure gateways it IS essential, and therefore must be supported lest they say they won't support it, hence me asking if there were any distro's that do

>Don't base everything on popularity, if it has 10,000 users versus
>10,000,000 users on something else, it doesn't make it a valid reason
>for non-support
Yes it does; while we're talking about the subject of fairness, would it be fair to offer default FFS support, while leaving out ReiserFS, JFS, XFS, and a whole lot of others?

no it doesn't, jfs etc are all linux but bsd is a different breed built from a better point of security in mind with it's code security audited and such makes it ideal ITRW

See, I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of my posts. My purpose isn't to make OpenBSD look bad. I have heard many positive things about it, and I'm probably going to try it at some point. <you should> The whole purpose of my first post in this thread was to suggest a reason as to why FFS isn't supported on most modern distributions.

you're not aware of it's importance yet thats all, no problem man, and thanks for telling me off back there about how your coming across, it's good to know

the fact it IS being used by people who need it in a real world sense and i as an admin for one such breed and having installed one at a department within the university here and i know the real headcase security know it alls all use it and they may as well just switch it on, i can understand only one LINUX fs (xfs, reiserfs, jfs, ext3,) but NO *BSD support when we use both anyway! you might feel happy in your network with linux on the frontend, heck maybe you even run windows gateway and linux internally coz you heard it was more secure on the gateway, you have to realise JUST how important that is in a real world environment and not just inside your bedroom system!

i'm no good at this replying with quote crap, i personally think you ought to come talk to me at my Lab Chat and i'll even give you a shell on the gateway if you want to have a look around. one of the devs for LINUX's unrealircd (cheers wolfy ) has recently been making alterations to their Config to make sure it has OpenBSD 4.1 support, even though the site hasn't been updated by the looks of it to show Openbsd's versions working, which they all do up to 4.1 which is now fixed for me (/thanks wolfy )


The Linux Community as a whole sees the importance IMO and should be respected IMO
the post stands
does anyone know a distro that comes with default FFS support?

why not just compile your own kernel

You've obviously made up your mind as to why there are so few distros that offer FFS support, so why did you ask the question in the first place? I think I've made my point, and if you don't accept it as a possibility, fine. I was never trying to prove anything, just merely offer a reason which may or may not be correct.

not made my mind up at all, seeing as i can't read minds. i merely make argument why it should be i asked because i want one. you made no valid point and i never said you were wrong, again, it's just valid argument as to why it should be supported. as to why your posting here, i have no idea, you make these points out your hat man, you need to sit back and relax a bit. have more fact before replying.i'm not even interested in why it is or isn't supported. the point is it should be.

so back to the question, AGAIN

does anyone ELSE know a distro with FFS support out-the-box?
ty

all distros, just compile your own kernel. its not that hard.

as allready stated, sick of doing it, i test out a lot of linux and can't be arsed to keep adding it, it's doing my nut in, see your acting like you know that this is a small thing and no big deal, but your wrong, it is a big deal and the only ones not seeing it is linux afaik

NO DISCRIMINATION!
its a fact there is no reason it can't be added, not only in the interests of interoperability which is indeed the main reason but also for the moral implications.

really? i wasn't aware of such a limitation, well anyway! this isn't about booting an OS, this is about being able to mount and access the partition

GRUB is the GRand Unified Bootloader. Briefly, bootloader is the
first software program that runs when a computer starts. It is
responsible for loading and transferring control to the operating
system kernel software (such as NetBSD or Linux). GRUB understands
ffs, FAT{16,32}, ext2fs, ReiserFS, minixfs, and VSTafs. It can
directly boot NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Linux without any other
bootloader


i got that from here - http://pkgsrc.se/sysutils/grub