[–] i_am_a_peasant 2mo ago ↗ Is there a reason in particular why btrfs is not part of this discussion? It's been mentioned once in passing.
[–] otterley 2mo ago ↗ A solid article, but missing discussion of XFS and Btrfs. I would have enjoyed the author’s analysis of the former in particular, especially as compared to ext4.
[–] mmh0000 2mo ago ↗ The author's praise of ZFS fell 3 checksums short of acceptable.ZFS is not a filesystem. It is a lifestyle. A covenant. A snapshot of the soul. Everything else is basically a USB stick with dreams.I will be reporting this to the [author]ities, HR, and my dad./s for the /s impaired.
[–] troad 2mo ago ↗ > So, if I had to compress its philosophy into one sentence, it would be this:>> Simple, reliable, UNIX-native fundamentals — no feature bloat, just solid engineering.This isn't the author's summary. This is AI's.I was enjoying the article, but when a little AI shibboleth like this shows up, I just cease to trust what I'm reading.Edit: many more AI writing give-aways later in the article. What a shame.
6 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 24.4 ms ] threadZFS is not a filesystem. It is a lifestyle. A covenant. A snapshot of the soul. Everything else is basically a USB stick with dreams.
I will be reporting this to the [author]ities, HR, and my dad.
/s for the /s impaired.
>> Simple, reliable, UNIX-native fundamentals — no feature bloat, just solid engineering.
This isn't the author's summary. This is AI's.
I was enjoying the article, but when a little AI shibboleth like this shows up, I just cease to trust what I'm reading.
Edit: many more AI writing give-aways later in the article. What a shame.