I'm really excited for this. If it lives up to the hype I think it could become the defacto filesystem some day.
BTRFS, despite being a great filesystem, got a bad rep mostly due to its poor RAID5/6 implementation. It also lags behind in performance in many configurations and has been mostly relagated to a specialty filesystem. While it could make a great root filesystem few distros have adopted it as such.
ZFS has been similarly pigeon holed. It's typically only used for building large arrays because it's not very safe when used on a single device (edit: After some research this may not be true and is probably outdated or incorrect info stuck in my head) . It also lacks a lot of the flexibility of BTRFS, though you could say it trades flexibility for reliability.
bcachesfs on the other hand feels like it has the potential to be adopted as a root file system while also providing replication, erasure coding, high performance and snapshots; something that no filesystem has managed to date, at least on a wide scale.
Office buildings are designed to be remodeled. Just about every time a new company comes in they remodel the space to fit their needs. This includes adding/removing kitchens, bathrooms, server rooms, lighting, HVAC etc...
Sure, you're going to have to run a whole lot more plumbing for residential, maybe you even need a larger connection to the sewer but you're already doing a full tear out, these things are inconsequential.
Somehow I'm supposed to believe it's cheaper to build out from scratch rather than repurpose an existing structure? It makes no sense.
In my experience, at least in the US, most people aren't getting rid of their car because a new car is cheaper, they do it because the cost to repair the old car exceeds the current car's value. This is actually a very poor justification for buying a new car but it happens all the time. People get scared when they get a high repair bill and jump into a multi year auto loan costing 250+/month.
Cars are expensive here though so you're unlikely to buy new for much less than 20k and the reality is most consumers aren't buying base model cheap compact cars.
Of course you may be able to buy used cheaper but people who are afraid of repair bills aren't usually rushing out to replace one old car with another.
What you described is already done with ICE vehicles. Engines and transmissions are rebuilt all the time. Even cars that are totaled are typically given a second life.
Ultimately it's the vehicle's body and frame that determine when it's at the end of it's life. You're not going to put a new battery in a tesla with a rusted out frame.
Arguably the lifespan could be worse for EVs since replacing the batteries is so expensive (more than a typical engine rebuild) that many probably won't be willing to put that much money into an old vehicle.
He's actually right about this one despite the down votes. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles that use elective motors not engines so there are no oil changes.
The difference is that a fuel cell vehicle captures electrons during the reaction that takes place when hydrogen is exposed to oxygen (they bond to from H2O) rather than storing energy in batteries.
So battery electric vehicles store their energy in a battery while fuel cell electric vehicles store it in the form of hydrogen but ultimately electricity is was powers both of them.
I don't know what provoked the OP's comment. I just wanted to add context because I personally made a lot of bad assumptions from it before reading the article.
Also I don't know that your statement is accurate and global warming is never brought up in the article.
They don't know why the ozone hole is big this year but they suspect it may be related to a volcanic eruption. Article concludes that scientists expect the ozone layer to be back to normal by 2050.
The suggestion is that this is an unusual year for the ozone layer which sees the hole expand this time every year before retracting again by December. They never suggest human behavior is damaging it again.
Well for starters they make the most popular pickup in America (F-150).
They also recently released the new Bronco and the Maverick. Both of these vehicles are incredibly popular to the point where they haven't been able to keep up with orders. Both vehicles brought them into a new market that they weren't competing in before with the Maverick being one of the only small, affordable pickups in America and the Bronco being a direct competitor to the Wrangler.
Then there's the F-150 lightning, they were the first of the big three automakers to introduce an electric pickup.
What? I never said I was trolling. I said I was offering a different perspective.
It's so bizarre how people are attacking me for that. You would think I said something awful.
I did enjoy the reaction that my original comment got but only because the comment wasn't intended to stir up controversy or invoke a strong reaction but clearly has.
I was contributing to a conversation with a comment that I feel was quite harmless. I didn't know free speech absolutism was such a feather rustling topic.
No I don't personally believe in absolute free speech I was just trying to offer perspective in response to a comment that was rejecting the concept outright.
I do enjoy the rise it got out of this audience though.
The concept of absolute freedom of speech is based on lessons learned in history and even the present. As soon as you start limiting speech you have to draw a line and nobody can agree on where that line should be. The real issue however, is that it's ultimately government that decides.
A government that can limit few speech gets to decide what acceptable speech is and that's a dangerous power in the hands of the wrong people.
There's definitely consequences to unhinderred free speech but I think history shows us that the alternative is worse.
We never even warmed bottles. Some people were shocked to see us pull a bottle straight out of the fridge and give it to our daughter but I didn't see any reason to warm them when she was perfectly happy with cold milk. I'd rather not have to worry about overheating it or having to lug around a bottle warmer when traveling.
I do like the monitor though but it's more of a convenience and piece of mind thing than a necessity. Being able to see her means we know if that big thud was her kicking the wall vs falling out of her crib without getting up and running into the room. We almost always keep the volume muted though, it's a small house and we can can hear her just fine except for if we're both outside.
The advice I give other parents is to not buy anything but the absolute basics until you really need it because a lot of things you think you'll need you probably don't.
When you buy something from a streaming service you're only buying the right to stream it, nothing more.
You can't compare it to owning physical media because there are ongoing costs involved for Amazon to host it and ever changing contracts with media companies outlining what they are allowed to host.
I'm really excited for this. If it lives up to the hype I think it could become the defacto filesystem some day.
BTRFS, despite being a great filesystem, got a bad rep mostly due to its poor RAID5/6 implementation. It also lags behind in performance in many configurations and has been mostly relagated to a specialty filesystem. While it could make a great root filesystem few distros have adopted it as such.
ZFS has been similarly pigeon holed. It's typically only used for building large arrays because it's not very safe when used on a single device (edit: After some research this may not be true and is probably outdated or incorrect info stuck in my head) . It also lacks a lot of the flexibility of BTRFS, though you could say it trades flexibility for reliability.
bcachesfs on the other hand feels like it has the potential to be adopted as a root file system while also providing replication, erasure coding, high performance and snapshots; something that no filesystem has managed to date, at least on a wide scale.