Why not allow us to have a choice for filesystems?

There is no real technical reason not to let the user install to ext3/ext4/xfs, Yeah you include a few utilities that are BTRFS centric, like snapper and the assistant, but thats not a good reason to limit the user's choice so severely. I really like using the OS itself, it works perfectly, but I've lost enough data to BTRFS already that I refuse to ever use it (had it corrupt on me again just 2 weeks ago)

Related to that, I know Garuda works great on ext3, because im currently running it on ext3, with systemd-boot instead of grub, it'd just be nice if the actual installer gave me the choice instead of having to install it, then rsync the whole thing off the drive, reformat, rsync it all back (recombining all the subvolumes from BTRFS back into a single filesystem), then setting up systemd-boot manually, making a new initramfs, edit my fstab and be on my way.

Just please reconsider this decision, im not asking for fancy utilities, or attention, all I wish for is during install the option to choose a filesystem even if it means snapper is rendered useless, systemd-boot is already part of the system, and it was not hard at all to set it up (i know because thats why I used it, it was easier than grub to deal with), actually kinda surprises me this system wasn't already using systemd-boot, grub is old news these days.

Umm... Not to dampen your enthusiasm but why not just straight up boot to archlinux and add garuda's repository if you don't like this? Just a thought please don't take it negatively.


Because arch doesn't autoconfigure -anything-, and when I mean anything, I mean for example, not only does it not setup the sudoers file, it doesn't setup visudo either, nor does it even bother to set a default editor in the terminal.

Now while I know how to configure all of this stuff, its simply too many hours of work that adds up, I gave BTRFS the benefit of the doubt, and got burned.

Even with as little as arch configures, it does indeed offer the user a choice of 4 filesystems and 2 bootloaders (grub and systemd-boot), but thats about all it will configure on your behalf, everything beyond that you get to guess as to what should be enabled or disabled, installed or not installed, even if you feed it garuda's package list, none of it would be enabled or configured, and you'd have no idea what needs to be configured beyond the obvious.

Boot up the latest Arch LiveISO, connect to Wifi if necessary, type Archinstall, and a handy-dandy Python script will easily guide you through it. A dozen or so choices. Most of the "autoconfig" is done for you.

Hint: After booting into the LiveISO, but efore starting the Archinstall routine, you can edit (I use nano) /etc/pacman.conf to unremark ParallelDownloads. I also unremark Color and add ILoveCandy just below it. Do not unremark any repositories and do not update the repositories--the script will do so.

Or skip all that and just type Archinstall at the prompt.


Make partitions beforehand with GParted and feed these partitions to installer.


testing it now, ill let you know how it goes

that worked beautifully, thankyou very much for that suggestion, amazing how I overlooked something that simple :smiley:

1 Like

The days of Btrfs causing filesystem corruption without cause are about ten years in the past. :eyes: Almost certainly the corruption you have experienced has a cause which you have not identified (as opposed to no cause). Also Btrfs is able to recover from many types of corruption with a trivial amount of intervention.

You should investigate the actual cause of your disk corruption, since anything that can corrupt a Btrfs disk can corrupt any other filesystem as well. The most common cause of corruption would be improperly unmounting the drives (a bad shutdown will do it). Second to that would be a failing disk.

ext4 succeeded ext3 in 2008. :eyes: There is no legitimate reason to use ext3 because ext4 is faster, more stable, and more featureful than ext3. ext3 is outdated and has a lot of disadvantages.

Btrfs is better than both of them, according to Theodore Tso (the principal developer of ext3 and ext4):

On June 28, 2006, Theodore Ts'o, the principal developer of ext3,[44] announced an enhanced version, called ext4. On October 11, 2008, the patches that mark ext4 as stable code were merged in the Linux 2.6.28 source code repositories, marking the end of the development phase and recommending its adoption. In 2008, Ts'o stated that although ext4 has improved features such as being much faster than ext3, it is not a major advance, it uses old technology, and is a stop-gap; Ts'o believes that Btrfs is the better direction, because "it offers improvements in scalability, reliability, and ease of management".[45] Btrfs also has "a number of the same design ideas that reiser3/4 had".[46]


As far as I'm concerned no reason to use ext3 EVER, as for ext4 only from secondary data drives.

Ext4 was good enough for me in 2008, and it is good enough still. There is a certain sense of security gained in using something that is tried & true. I find BTRFS a slippery surface--and I'll leave it for you youngsters to play with.

P.S. ReiserFS coulda been a contender--'til Hans went wacko with his wife.


This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.