OSNews.com interviews the project leads for three of the
journaling file systems available for Linux regarding the
differences between each, inclusion in the Linux kernel, and how
production-ready each is:
Hans Reiser: "With regards to particular unnamed
distros.... :-).... Stability is not the issue, ReiserFS is known
to be stable by the people who use it. SuSE is known to worry more
about stability much more than the unnamed untrusting distros you
mention (think of how SuSE waited for 2.4.4 before shipping 2.4 as
the default, think gcc...), and we are the SuSE default.
I used to think that it was politics that was the reason why
positions in discussions of ReiserFS on linux-kernel prior to our
acceptance by Linus are predictable by what distro the poster works
at, but more and more I am coming to see that the difference is one
of style, and that what style the developer embraces is
semi-predictable by distro. Different people adopt change at
different rates. ReiserFS has at its heart some of the same lust
for change that BeFS has. You probably don't realize how scary it
is to most old time Unix filesytem developers to talk about adding
new semantics to the filesystem namespace like we describe at here,
or here, or like BeFS has already done. What many distros want in
Linux is simply what Unix has, but free, and nothing much more.
SuSE has an exceptional head of R&D, Markus Rex, who
understands the deep things before they are something real yet.
They then combine this with a quality assurance team lead by Hubert
Mantel, that is also exceptional in the industry. The result is
that with SuSE you tend to get cutting edge technology that works.
I think it is in part because they are so fanatical about quality
assurance, and good at it, that they have the confidence to adopt
change a bit earlier than others who get burned just changing the
compiler for an unchanging language."