Oh, okay, lazy guy. This is the pedants way of stomping their feet because they refuse to read the obvious that is already out there, you know. Go ahead and be a lil baby because your point is wrong.

Despite this, it has become clear that BcacheFS is rather unstable, with frequent and extensive patches being submitted to the point where [Linus Torvalds] in August of last year pushed back against it, as well as expressing regret for merging BcacheFS into mainline Linux. As covered in the video, [Kent] has pushed users reporting issues to upgrade to the latest Linux kernel to get critical fixes, which really reinforces the notion that BcacheFS is at best an experimental Alpha-level filesystem implementation and should probably not be used with important data or systems.

https://hackaday.com/2025/06/10/the-ongoing-bcachefs-filesystem-stability-controversy/

Literally describes the same behavior here from a different time period: https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/01/bcachefs_may_get_dropped/

[–] stephen01king@piefed.zip 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's unstable because it's a new file system, not because the guy is a shit programmer. Did you even read your second link? It repeats the exact reason we've all tried to tell you, that it was removed because Kent keeps releasing new features during release candidate period.

Also, I don't get why you can't discuss things in a civil manner. Is this why you keep insisting that Kent's project is not being removed because of his attitude, but because of his lack of skill? Are you scared of admitting that your attitude will one day get you treated the same way as Kent's does?

[+] just_another_person@lemmy.world -6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Pathetic 🤣

It's like you're a wannabe a troll, but you're incapable of really hammering home the pendantic nature of facile incel ricochet insults.

Whenever you want to give up and admit you're wrong, I'll be here ignoring you.

[–] stephen01king@piefed.zip 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, the troll here is the one who can't be bothered to read people's comment before replying. Try again.

[–] mzan@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago

An inspirational reply of koverstreet https://lwn.net/Articles/1028572/ He is focused on solving all bug reports, and in iterating bcachefs in the faster way possible. It is a sort of implicit contract with its users base: "you are using bcachefs in production/real-world despite it is experimental, and I will support you restoring files and improving code".

So, I can understand why he doesn't like waiting too much before releasing improvements. The Linux kenernel release cycle can transform weeks in months if some bug-fixes requires new features or refactorings, like in case of a new file system. I'm sorry that him and Linux maintainers didn't find a good approach.

BTW, I used bcachefs for 1-2 years with 3 HDD and 1 SSD in cache. It supported this usage scenario better than ZFS for a desktop/workstation like mine setting.

[–] mzan@programming.dev 3 points 7 months ago

Bcachefs was not kicked out because its design and implementation is of bad quality. A bad quality software is something that is: full of bugs; every 4 fixed bugs you introduce a new one; the design is so wrong that it is difficult to add new features; the code is difficult to understand.

If you consider various metrics like irrecoverable loss of data, lines of code, features, Bcachefs is a very good project. It is under development, so the source code is not "stable" and there are frequent updates, but the behavior of the file system is fully under control and it is only improving,