Cyanogenmod's browser (i.e; "App info:" com.android.browser 5.1.1-dadb818d36) has some (maybe) bugs( haven't looked into it,) losses taps if I open a new one or minimise the browser (tho it could be a setting to save resources? )

"He" happens to work in computer support and therefore has to use the same OS as most of his clients most of the time.
"He" also happened to have been in computing since before Linux or Windows was developed and therefore was brought up thinking differently.
It doesn't matter what language you speak, most of the time the tools you use are the same and do the same things.

1 members found this post helpful.

Ext4 - it works and like many other ext4 users, I see no reason to change.

...then why not "Fat" or way-way-way earlier?

In ubuntu:ext4
in salix:xfs
in opensuse:btrfs
in company centos/redhat:xfs/ext4

I mostly use default filesystem of the distro..

Years ago in the 90's it was possible to install Linux on FAT file systems using UMSDOS which is has been defunct for a long time. UMSDOS did do a form of POSIX file system emulation on top of the FAT file system. The emulation method was similar to how Windows 95 stored long file names in FAT. I used to run Slackware on an FAT file system back then. It wasn't as efficient as using a regular Linux file system but the slow down wasn't really noticeable in those days.

2 members found this post helpful.

good day, hazel

still running ext4 here on all my linux boxes... it works well for me, so i see no reason to move away from it at this point in time

I use ext3 for /boot and ext4 for / and /home. I have no favorites, I just use what is the standard.

- Linux Rocks =)

One thing I've noticed in my slow progress from ext2 to ext3 to ext4 is that the system has grown more tolerant of emergency shutdowns. If you did that with ext2, you got your knuckles rapped when you started up again, and mount insisted on fscking the disk before remounting it. Nowadays that doesn't seem to happen any more. I assume that's because of journalling.

Hi foobarX.

Would ext2 be more suited for /boot? I guess the poll should have had multi choice for those with more than 1 partition type.

Yes, Hazel, ext4 journaling is a vast improvement. You may see transitory messages on startup about clearing orphaned inodes, but that takes only a second or so and you have to read quickly to even see it. We lose electrical power here all too often, and I really should get a UPS, but I've never bothered. I've experienced no ill effects, no data loss or other problems, from unexpected shutdowns. My wife wants me to unplug the computer and everything else when thunderstorms come around, but I have a surge protector in place and just keep on with what I'm doing. So far so good...

BTRFS because of compression. I know there other filesystems that offer compression but I don't have time to play with them.

ext2 is a good choice as well but it's a bit old.

What would be the advantage over EXT4 or any other bootable file system?

Hi 273.

Ext2 is non-journaled which is ideal for /boot. It also keeps the partition size smaller.

More here: https://askubuntu.com/questions/3371...he-other-forma